19-05-2026, 09:01 PM
(19-05-2026, 04:39 PM)dashstofsk wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But the main point I wanted to highlight was that the writer was not following any sort of algorithm, was not consulting code tables or ledgers or throwing dice. I believe people are thinking too hard. The method is probably more simple.
Let us reverse the argument and start from the absolute simplest action: copy the word you just wrote. So after writing "chol" you would write "chol" again. But to write a whole book this way would be too obvious.
Therefore instead of writing "chol" again you modify it slightly and write "shol". This is better but still obviously repetitive.
Second complication: don't always copy the last word — copy a different word already in your field of view. This results in "chol.shol.daiin" Now it looks varied. But "daiin" came from somewhere visible — maybe two lines up. And next you modify "daiin" to "dain". This results in text like "shol.shot.shol.shol.daiin.dain" on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Then you look elsewhere and copy another previously written word.
That's self-citation. Nothing more. Three steps from the absolute simplest possible action:
1. Copy → too repetitive
2. Copy and modify → still too repetitive
3. Copy and modify from varying visible sources → looks like language
Each step adds exactly enough complexity to avoid the previous step's problem. No rules, no tables, no algorithms, no dice. The scribe just needs to not repeat himself too obviously — and the minimum effort to achieve that is self-citation.
Note: "shol.shot.shol.shol.daiin.dain" on line 13 is not even the most striking example on folio f42r.
Look at lines 20-21:
<f42r.P3.20;H> shol.chol.shoky.okol.sho.chol.chol.chal-
<f42r.P3.21;H> shol.chol.chol.shol.ctoiin.sos.odan-

