22-09-2026, 06:30 AM
@ Stolfi: The argument about the errors is NOT evidence against it; it’s a theoretical possibility—it could be, or it might not be.
The problem, however, is that this approach allows you to retroactively label any “disturbing” form as an error. In this way, almost any finding can be dismissed. But the sh/ch structure is too deeply rooted—as Aga’s image impressively demonstrates—to be dismissed as a mistake.
But I do realize that these sh/ch structures I’m pointing out here at least have the theoretical potential to call your Chinese theory into question. That’s why I wanted to discuss the phenomenon in your thread, and so i started it there.
That’s why I wanted to discuss the phenomenon in your thread and presented it there as well, and I think we should continue the discussion in your chat: because the point is that I wanted an explanation from you as to how this fits in with the Chinese theory. And to do that, of course, we also have to talk about the Chinese theory, and that doesn’t fit thematically here. The board rule is: one topic per thread!
For VBM, especially in the REVA analysis (Eva reverse), this phenomenon isn’t a problem at all—because it doesn’t occur at the token level here, but within words and when read backward, it sort of dissolves. So this discussion here is of rather secondary importance. But if we reach a conclusion—which, unfortunately, I doubt—I'll post it here in my thread.
So if you agree, I’ll take your answer—since it does address my posts there —and respond to it in your thread on the Chinese theory; I think that’s the most reasonable approach.
PS. But I'm out and about today, so I probably won't be able to reply until tomorrow at the earliest
The problem, however, is that this approach allows you to retroactively label any “disturbing” form as an error. In this way, almost any finding can be dismissed. But the sh/ch structure is too deeply rooted—as Aga’s image impressively demonstrates—to be dismissed as a mistake.
But I do realize that these sh/ch structures I’m pointing out here at least have the theoretical potential to call your Chinese theory into question. That’s why I wanted to discuss the phenomenon in your thread, and so i started it there.
That’s why I wanted to discuss the phenomenon in your thread and presented it there as well, and I think we should continue the discussion in your chat: because the point is that I wanted an explanation from you as to how this fits in with the Chinese theory. And to do that, of course, we also have to talk about the Chinese theory, and that doesn’t fit thematically here. The board rule is: one topic per thread!
For VBM, especially in the REVA analysis (Eva reverse), this phenomenon isn’t a problem at all—because it doesn’t occur at the token level here, but within words and when read backward, it sort of dissolves. So this discussion here is of rather secondary importance. But if we reach a conclusion—which, unfortunately, I doubt—I'll post it here in my thread.
So if you agree, I’ll take your answer—since it does address my posts there —and respond to it in your thread on the Chinese theory; I think that’s the most reasonable approach.
PS. But I'm out and about today, so I probably won't be able to reply until tomorrow at the earliest