-JKP- > 16-09-2017, 07:46 PM
-JKP- > 16-09-2017, 08:01 PM
(16-09-2017, 07:59 PM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(16-09-2017, 07:46 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To all of you... do you honestly believe that the VMS is a one-to-one substitution code in a natural language?
Yes, it certainly is.
MarcoP > 16-09-2017, 08:20 PM
(16-09-2017, 12:14 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To all of you... do you honestly believe that the VMS is a one-to-one substitution code in a natural language?
-JKP- > 16-09-2017, 08:37 PM
(16-09-2017, 08:20 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(16-09-2017, 12:14 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To all of you... do you honestly believe that the VMS is a one-to-one substitution code in a natural language?
No, I think that Stephen could be right. The script could be an abjad (some vowel sounds are not written) and some sounds might be encoded using more than one "glyph". In particular, I think there is ample evidence for the second point (e.g. the various e, ee, eee, in, iin, iin sequences). I also don't see any particular reason to a-priori exclude that it could be an abjad.
Emma May Smith > 16-09-2017, 08:37 PM
-JKP- > 16-09-2017, 08:39 PM
(16-09-2017, 08:37 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why are we saying "one-to-one substitution code" in reference to a language? Substitution ciphers are for existing scripts. Most linguistic solutions would consider that the script we see is referencing the underlying language and not some intermediate script.
-JKP- > 16-09-2017, 09:00 PM
(16-09-2017, 08:20 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(16-09-2017, 12:14 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To all of you... do you honestly believe that the VMS is a one-to-one substitution code in a natural language?
No, I think that Stephen could be right. The script could be an abjad (some vowel sounds are not written) and some sounds might be encoded using more than one "glyph". In particular, I think there is ample evidence for the second point (e.g. the various e, ee, eee, in, iin, iin sequences). I also don't see any particular reason to a-priori exclude that it could be an abjad.
davidjackson > 16-09-2017, 09:12 PM
farmerjohn > 16-09-2017, 09:45 PM
(16-09-2017, 08:01 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.There may be different definitions of "substitution code", "natural", "language", "Latin", but broadly speaking it's substitution code to natural language of course.(16-09-2017, 07:59 PM)farmerjohn Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(16-09-2017, 07:46 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To all of you... do you honestly believe that the VMS is a one-to-one substitution code in a natural language?
Yes, it certainly is.
LOL!!
The WWII Work Group would have solved it in a heartbeat.
If I can make time this weekend, I will post information on my blog that directly addresses this issue of natural language. I think I've finally figured out a way to present it so it's clear even to those with minimal familiarity with the text.