(31-05-2026, 04:45 PM)Dunsel wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.If you're saying that any viable explanation should eventually account for observed constraints such as CLS, slot patterns, grammars, or similar phenomena, I have no disagreement with that. If you're saying that a model or theory must explain those observations before evidence can even be considered, then I disagree.
The knee-jerk reaction (it was mine too but I changed my mind) is to reject copy-and-mutate methods of generation because they are incomplete: some incentive is needed to account for adherence to relatively rigid patterns. This can't be phonetic preferences only, the positional rigidity goes far beyond that. How the two apparently contradictory aspects can coexist is the question: good adherence to strict rules in general especially for high-frequency words but many exceptions show that some amount of chaotic behavior is allowed (or we don't understand the rules). Can mutation rules alone produce this behavior or is there a need for a separate set of almost-good-enough rules? Occam's razor favors emergent behavior from the copy-and-mutate theory alone, this would be ideal, much better than having an additional layer of constraints.


![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)