conlangyalesbaby > Yesterday, 02:19 AM
I believe the general consensus that the masses are stumped by MS-408, not only by the originality of it's script, but by what the actual glyph's could represent. The possibility of a decryption is out there, yet knowing the behavior of the MS-408, I doubt it would relate to any known language with fluent grammar. Well behaved sentences from a language with a decryption, I guarantee will not happen with MS-408. Even a straight across substitution using "Eva" would still show irregular behavior of its said language. Serious cryptologists like Turing, Friedman, Tilman and Currier all gave it a shot to try and give meaning to MS-408 without success. Does this imply the MS-408 design was meant to thwart decryption, especially with the world throwing into the ring with no complete translated message that's coherent? I say yes, sorry! Let's face it Yale covets' an obscure duck that has no quacking language, maybe it does have some meaning, but nothing fluent.ololololo > Yesterday, 10:58 AM