To counter the impression that I’m “watering down” my theory with all these posts, I’d like to briefly clarify the structure of my posts.
At first, there was really only a single basic assumption or rule:
Rule 1: Vowels are represented as bigrams, separated in the middle by word boundaries.
Rule 2: The Consonant-nuclei are encrypted.
The second rule is actually just a conclusion: Since the remaining consonant clusters cannot be plain text or a simple substitution due to the family structures, they must be encrypted.
With this alone, I can explain the various oddities of the VMS:
1. Using the VBM, I can explain why frequent word repetitions are simply a linguistic consequence of the VBM.
e.g.:
<f75r.13,+P0> pchedy.keedy.qokedy.<->qokedy.qokedy.qokedy.qokain.olshedy
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
<f8v.8,+P0> okchol k sh.<->chol.chol.chol.cthaiin.dain
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
2. These rules of VBM immediately give rise to some of the structures of VMS
- The uniform, almost static word distribution
- The limited word lengths
- The almost repetitive occurrences of similar words
- Words that differ by only one letter
- Repetitive phrases
- A structured nature of such text
- And the many hapax, which contradict any normal linguistic structure
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
3. The 7 rules for word boundaries become a principle of the VBM
This is because the VBM essentially reduces these rules to a simpler principle: word boundaries are separations of vowel bigrams, VL.VR, where the left side consists of only a small number of glyphs.
(This rule is later expanded; see below.)
4. The VBM produces significantly low entropy at the glyph level
If the extremely frequent vowels are encoded as recurring bigrams, lower glyph-level entropy is exactly what should be expected.
5. The VBM can very easily explain this strange long-range effect in the VMS.
Why does “shedy” follow “qo” 49% of the time and “tedy” only 25% of the time? How can a glyph in a normal language have a long-range effect extending beyond three glyphs and a space?
This then becomes a perfectly normal phenomenon in a natural language:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
6. The strukture of the chipher
So I added some more rules in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , because, of course, it can’t be that simple. These rules concern the families and the cores.
Rule 3: s="und" (and)—this resulted from frequency analyses, but isn’t actually that important, it change the counts only a little.
Rule 4: The aiiin, aiin, ain, aiir, air, am, ar, or, al, ol families were (on a trial basis) treated as suffixes. To better understand the roots, I omitted these families in the VMS and removed these suffixes from the Bairish text.
Result: The distribution of types and happaxes suddenly resembled that of the Bairish corpus. But the distribution did not.
This led to two additional rules:
Rule 5: The glyphs “k,” “t,” and “d” are markers defined by the families that follow them.
That is to say: in “kaiin,” “k” is something different than in “kain” or “keed.” So one must distinguish between the different “k”s. The same applies to “d” and “t.”
This is not arbitrary. These three glyphs are almost completely tied to families or y:
k: 98.4%; d: 97.9%; t: 98.4%
Once these states are separated, the most frequent VMS type drops from 11.65% to 5.82%, which matches the Bavarian value: 5.84%.
That is not a minor cosmetic improvement.
Rule 6 And then came Rule 6, which isn’t really a rule in its own right, but merely an extension of Rule 5: The glyphs that follow the E family—that is, y or non-Y—must also be separated accordingly. This is logical and had nothing to do with trial and error. The cipher encodes multiple parts as a single unit.
And lo and behold, suddenly everything fits perfectly:
The highly peculiar distribution of glyphs—which supposedly doesn’t fit any language—fits perfectly with a language solely on the basis of these few assumptions. And not through completely outlandish rule constructions, but through very simple assumptions that arise from the logic of the VMS structure and were NOT simply made up!!!
(I made the post You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.so detailed in order to accurately present the background.)
So we’re dealing here with a basic rule and very few assumptions that can suddenly explain the most absurd anomalies of the VMS in a relatively simple and comprehensible way.
Now you have to pull out your calculator and think about how likely it is that such a simple basic rule could explain so many peculiarities of the VMS—and, with just a few additional assumptions, this head-and-tail distribution. Not because it’s proof, but because a relatively compact underlying architecture forces more and more previously separate anomalies into a single common mechanism. Taken individually, each one could be a coincidence, but together...
So I really don’t understand why my posts—and especially #321—are supposed to lead to a “watering down” of the discussion; it’s the exact opposite. It simply explains the underlying cipher and demonstrates, using the Bavarian corpus, that it can indeed work this way (which does not definitively prove that it is Bavarian, but only that VMS under the VBM could be a language.)
Let’s ask it the other way around: What other theory can achieve all this with so few assumptions?
At first, there was really only a single basic assumption or rule:
Rule 1: Vowels are represented as bigrams, separated in the middle by word boundaries.
Rule 2: The Consonant-nuclei are encrypted.
The second rule is actually just a conclusion: Since the remaining consonant clusters cannot be plain text or a simple substitution due to the family structures, they must be encrypted.
With this alone, I can explain the various oddities of the VMS:
1. Using the VBM, I can explain why frequent word repetitions are simply a linguistic consequence of the VBM.
e.g.:
<f75r.13,+P0> pchedy.keedy.qokedy.<->qokedy.qokedy.qokedy.qokain.olshedy
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
<f8v.8,+P0> okchol k sh.<->chol.chol.chol.cthaiin.dain
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
2. These rules of VBM immediately give rise to some of the structures of VMS
- The uniform, almost static word distribution
- The limited word lengths
- The almost repetitive occurrences of similar words
- Words that differ by only one letter
- Repetitive phrases
- A structured nature of such text
- And the many hapax, which contradict any normal linguistic structure
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
3. The 7 rules for word boundaries become a principle of the VBM
This is because the VBM essentially reduces these rules to a simpler principle: word boundaries are separations of vowel bigrams, VL.VR, where the left side consists of only a small number of glyphs.
(This rule is later expanded; see below.)
4. The VBM produces significantly low entropy at the glyph level
If the extremely frequent vowels are encoded as recurring bigrams, lower glyph-level entropy is exactly what should be expected.
5. The VBM can very easily explain this strange long-range effect in the VMS.
Why does “shedy” follow “qo” 49% of the time and “tedy” only 25% of the time? How can a glyph in a normal language have a long-range effect extending beyond three glyphs and a space?
This then becomes a perfectly normal phenomenon in a natural language:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
6. The strukture of the chipher
So I added some more rules in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , because, of course, it can’t be that simple. These rules concern the families and the cores.
Rule 3: s="und" (and)—this resulted from frequency analyses, but isn’t actually that important, it change the counts only a little.
Rule 4: The aiiin, aiin, ain, aiir, air, am, ar, or, al, ol families were (on a trial basis) treated as suffixes. To better understand the roots, I omitted these families in the VMS and removed these suffixes from the Bairish text.
Result: The distribution of types and happaxes suddenly resembled that of the Bairish corpus. But the distribution did not.
This led to two additional rules:
Rule 5: The glyphs “k,” “t,” and “d” are markers defined by the families that follow them.
That is to say: in “kaiin,” “k” is something different than in “kain” or “keed.” So one must distinguish between the different “k”s. The same applies to “d” and “t.”
This is not arbitrary. These three glyphs are almost completely tied to families or y:
k: 98.4%; d: 97.9%; t: 98.4%
Once these states are separated, the most frequent VMS type drops from 11.65% to 5.82%, which matches the Bavarian value: 5.84%.
That is not a minor cosmetic improvement.
Rule 6 And then came Rule 6, which isn’t really a rule in its own right, but merely an extension of Rule 5: The glyphs that follow the E family—that is, y or non-Y—must also be separated accordingly. This is logical and had nothing to do with trial and error. The cipher encodes multiple parts as a single unit.
And lo and behold, suddenly everything fits perfectly:
Code:
Measure VMS with family states Bavarian
Types 1,157 1,123
Hapaxes 721 667
Top-1 5.82% 5.84 %
Cov50 34 33.6
Cov80 182 190
Cov90 449 436 The highly peculiar distribution of glyphs—which supposedly doesn’t fit any language—fits perfectly with a language solely on the basis of these few assumptions. And not through completely outlandish rule constructions, but through very simple assumptions that arise from the logic of the VMS structure and were NOT simply made up!!!
(I made the post You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.so detailed in order to accurately present the background.)
So we’re dealing here with a basic rule and very few assumptions that can suddenly explain the most absurd anomalies of the VMS in a relatively simple and comprehensible way.
Now you have to pull out your calculator and think about how likely it is that such a simple basic rule could explain so many peculiarities of the VMS—and, with just a few additional assumptions, this head-and-tail distribution. Not because it’s proof, but because a relatively compact underlying architecture forces more and more previously separate anomalies into a single common mechanism. Taken individually, each one could be a coincidence, but together...
So I really don’t understand why my posts—and especially #321—are supposed to lead to a “watering down” of the discussion; it’s the exact opposite. It simply explains the underlying cipher and demonstrates, using the Bavarian corpus, that it can indeed work this way (which does not definitively prove that it is Bavarian, but only that VMS under the VBM could be a language.)
Let’s ask it the other way around: What other theory can achieve all this with so few assumptions?