Juan_Sali > 10-05-2024, 01:15 PM
(09-05-2024, 12:46 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But if there is a very plausible missing word, then why is this word missing in the first place? There must have been something working against its inclusion.If it is a code with some ngrams with meaning: x1 x2 x3 ... xn.
obelus > 10-05-2024, 07:21 PM
(10-05-2024, 09:32 AM)nablator Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Unattested?
Torsten > 10-05-2024, 07:47 PM
(09-05-2024, 12:35 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That's a really interesting question. I suspect different methods would yield different answers, but probably still worthwhile to try. The method I outlined above would give us one way to identify the "most probable" sequence that doesn't actually occur (not necessarily the best way, but a way). Another promising source of likely valid but unattested words is Torsten Timm's paper at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. starting at page 66 -- thinking of all the words marked with (---): [doir], [daiiral], etc. I gather he'd classify all of these as "likely," although I'm not sure he'd have a method for ranking any one of them as "the most likely."
RobGea > 11-05-2024, 12:35 AM
ReneZ > 11-05-2024, 08:21 AM
(10-05-2024, 07:47 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Even on his latest website about a related topic our research is not even mentioned [see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.]. I wish to emphasize here that I do not criticize the fact that researchers like René Zandbergen, or Claire Bowern obviously see our work as completely irrelevant.
Torsten > 12-05-2024, 10:32 AM
(11-05-2024, 08:21 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.More specifially, I do not agree that the evidence that has been presented comes anywhere near demonstrating it.
(11-05-2024, 08:21 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I agree that there isn't a lot about your work at my web site, but at least there is a mention You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., with the important references.
(11-05-2024, 08:21 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.While the existence of the network of words based on single Levenshtein distances is undoubtledly an important key to 'how it was done', this does not at all explain why there are so many forbidden changes.
These 'rules' about what is allowed and what is forbidden are more the topic of the approaches in this thread, and in Massimo Zattera's work. And of course in the various word paradigms that culminated in Stolfi's various word grammars.
Juan_Sali > 12-05-2024, 11:55 AM
(10-05-2024, 07:47 PM)Torsten Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Another promising source of likely valid but unattested words is Torsten Timm's paper at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is not the place to discuss your paper and I havent read it carefully.
Torsten > 12-05-2024, 02:55 PM
(12-05-2024, 11:55 AM)Juan_Sali Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.¿How many matches do you consider to be rarely consecutive and how many exceptions do you consider? If a rule has too many expection the rule will be a weak one.
HermesRevived > 18-05-2024, 09:35 PM
HermesRevived > 21-05-2024, 08:40 PM