Stephen.Bax > 21-09-2017, 06:46 PM
(21-09-2017, 06:03 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(21-09-2017, 05:22 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:Well, that suggestion has been around for a long while. But the words which [q] attaches to suggests not. About 80% of words starting [q] see the character followed by either [ot] or [ok]. Almost none are followed by [ch] or [sh], or even [r]. The word 'and' should attache to a class of words, specifically nouns, so we would have to propose that [t] and [k] were noun markers. This would put us on a much different path from a natural language, thus destroying the goal of finding functions words, surely?
Hi Emma,
The word "and" may well join adjectives, verbs, or even numerals, but I agree that the major portion should be nouns. I'm not sure why you say that t and k would be noun markers. Would not o be a noun marker in this case?
I'd say that the task of finding function words extends beyond the natural language approach. It would suit artificial language, and maybe some not very sophisticated ciphers.
Were [o] a noun marker then there would be a high number of words starting [o] which don't take [q] frequently. For example, many words starting [ol] occur but have low rates of [q]. Furthermore, we would still be left with a problem as [ch, sh] don't even take [o] often.
The idea that [q] is a grammatical marker stems from the fact that it appears in the body text and not the labels. Yet I think this is actually a misunderstanding. It seems to not appear in diagrams, including running text which is part of those diagrams. For example, f70r2 has four lines of text running round the outside of the diagram, and there is not one [q] in it (there are instance of [q] in the block alongside).
-JKP- > 21-09-2017, 06:57 PM
(21-09-2017, 06:46 PM)Stephen.Bax Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Curiously, I notice that in the last one, f67r1, the example in the running text around the diagram is tantalisingly similar to the example in the text above the diagram
Running text:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Could be read as: qoikeey ?
Text above diagram:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Could also be read as: qoikeey ?
Anton > 21-09-2017, 07:14 PM
Anton > 21-09-2017, 07:27 PM
Emma May Smith > 21-09-2017, 07:36 PM
(21-09-2017, 06:23 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Quote:Were [o] a noun marker then there would be a high number of words starting [o] which don't take [q] frequently. For example, many words starting [ol] occur but have low rates of [q]. Furthermore, we would still be left with a problem as [ch, sh] don't even take [o] often.
Not sure if I understand your point correctly. Do you mean, e.g., that we have olor, but do not have qolor?
While qo- is the overwhelming prefix containing q (count of 5289), next to that are qe and qc (66 and 23, respectively). So maybe that's a set of function elements, with qo- being the most predominant of them.
Anyway, I definitely like that idea about q. The point about it is that not only it is infrequent in labels, but also that it is much more frequent in Currier B. But that might be explained by the nature of the texts of biological and recipe sections which just might require "and" quite often. I wonder whether there is any difference in q frequency between botanical A and botanical B.
davidjackson > 21-09-2017, 09:05 PM
Emma May Smith > 21-09-2017, 09:33 PM
Stephen.Bax > 22-09-2017, 01:17 AM
(21-09-2017, 09:33 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Grammatical structures can be quite varied and require us to analyze longer chunks of text. It's also harder to know what success would look like. Even if we managed to model the grammar of the text how would we prove that we had the right solution? Knowing the grammar alone would still need a further step.
But your way of thinking is quite right. We can map language universals onto the text and gain some kind of insight. This is what I've been doing looking at the structure of words trying to find out how the apparent structure reflects sounds. The great thing is that we can analyze words alone, have a much tighter understanding of the whole sound system, and the outcome is, potentially, a readable text. If we learnt enough about the different characters, how they're structured, how they interact, and what sounds they can and cannot be, the whole of the text will be open to us and we can simply say 'yes, this is a known language', or 'no, this is gibberish'.
The really, really, great thing is that each step can be built without reference to any particular language. We supply a sound linguistic argument for each conclusion and at no point waste time trying to fit the text to our preferred solution. (Well, excepting of course the assumption of a linguistic solution!)
Emma May Smith > 22-09-2017, 07:37 AM
Torsten > 22-09-2017, 09:46 AM
(22-09-2017, 01:17 AM)Stephen.Bax Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(21-09-2017, 09:33 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Grammatical structures can be quite varied and require us to analyze longer chunks of text. It's also harder to know what success would look like. Even if we managed to model the grammar of the text how would we prove that we had the right solution? Knowing the grammar alone would still need a further step.
But your way of thinking is quite right. We can map language universals onto the text and gain some kind of insight. This is what I've been doing looking at the structure of words trying to find out how the apparent structure reflects sounds. The great thing is that we can analyze words alone, have a much tighter understanding of the whole sound system, and the outcome is, potentially, a readable text. If we learnt enough about the different characters, how they're structured, how they interact, and what sounds they can and cannot be, the whole of the text will be open to us and we can simply say 'yes, this is a known language', or 'no, this is gibberish'.
The really, really, great thing is that each step can be built without reference to any particular language. We supply a sound linguistic argument for each conclusion and at no point waste time trying to fit the text to our preferred solution. (Well, excepting of course the assumption of a linguistic solution!)
Has this approach ever been successful in decoding any previously unknown language or script?