MarcoP > 16-09-2016, 11:32 AM
(15-09-2016, 02:28 AM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hey all, I've been trying to see if I could prove that spaces (as written) in the VMS are fake. I found some things which may indicate patterns across words, but I submit the images for your review:
<otchordy> split two different ways on the same page?
<otchordy> and <opchordy> in the text as 1, 2, or 3 words:
And then there is this beauty, where <kydaiin> repeats, but the combinations of <ch-ky> and <sh-ky> are also interesting:
Hope this might catch your interest!
ReneZ > 16-09-2016, 01:47 PM
Anton > 16-09-2016, 02:15 PM
Emma May Smith > 16-09-2016, 04:46 PM
-JKP- > 16-09-2016, 05:06 PM
Anton > 16-09-2016, 06:09 PM
Quote:And a question to moderators... Why does the software combine two different posts that are responses to two different people on two different subjects into the same post? It's very disconcerting for the poster, confusing to readers, and inconvenient for those who want to specifically respond to one or the other (or specifically "thank" one or the other), not both.
ThomasCoon > 16-09-2016, 09:01 PM
Searcher > 16-09-2016, 11:00 PM
-JKP- > 17-09-2016, 12:00 AM
(16-09-2016, 11:00 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.JKP, Thomas, thank you for your work on the text analysis, for bringing up the issues of spaces, null words, word structure in the VMs etc. I've found many important points for myself, moreover, I want to do my bit, too.
I've made a comparative table of word combinations (pairs) with the two VMs words: ol and qol.
This table shows only the matched combinations, but there are many other matched and not matched ones in the VMs. Anyway, I didn't expect 100% matching between them. Is that enough to conclude that ol and qol are the same words and q-glyph is a null character? Honestly, it seemed to me very promising idea in spite of that this table can't be a master card. It could be successful for my theory, as well (I wont go into details here).
I want to pay your attention to the word combinations from the group of "okedy" and "otedy" words. The difference is in e, ee, eee, ch, and, of course, in the "q"-presence. There are all the combinations (if I didn't miss some):
1)
okedy okedy
okedy okeedy
... [part of the list deleted for brevity]
qoteedy qokeedy
qotchdy qokchdy
Personally I find the variety of these incredibly similar word pairs strange. I'm at a loss and can't decide whether they are only two real word combinations or all these in their distinctions. I think, it could be a stronger argument in favour of the supposition about null "q"-character. On the other hand, in this case, if we mentally take away all the q-characters we get You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
The excessive richness with these words in the "balneo-" and "recies-" sections is too strange, even for incantations.
Ultimately, I'm still confused. Maybe, someone has a fresh explanation for this phenomenon.
ThomasCoon > 17-09-2016, 03:17 AM
(16-09-2016, 11:00 PM)Searcher Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.JKP, Thomas, thank you for your work on the text analysis, for bringing up the issues of spaces, null words, word structure in the VMs etc. I've found many important points for myself, moreover, I want to do my bit, too.
I've made a comparative table of word combinations (pairs) with the two VMs words: ol and qol.
This short table shows only the matched combinations, but there are many other matched and not matched ones in the VMs. Anyway, I didn't expect 100% matching between them. Is that enough to conclude that ol and qol are the same words and q-glyph is a null character? Honestly, it seemed to me very promising idea in spite of that this table can't be a master card. It could be successful for my theory, as well (I won't go into details here).
I want to pay your attention to the word combinations from the group of "okedy" and "otedy" words. The difference is in e, ee, eee, ch, and, of course, in the "q"-presence. There are all the combinations (if I didn't miss some):
1)
okedy okedy
okedy okeedy
okeedy okchdy
okedy qokeedy
okeedy qokedy
qokeedy okeedy
qokeedy okedy
qokedy qokedy
qokedy qokeedy
qokeedy qokedy
qokeedy qokeedy
qokedy qokchdy
qokeedy qokchdy
qokchdy qokedy
qokchdy qokchdy
2)
otedy okedy
otedy okeedy
oteedy okedy
otedy qokchdy
oteedy qokeedy
qotedy okeedy
qoteedy okeedy
qotedy okchdy
qoteedy qokeedy
qotchdy qokchdy
Personally I find the variety of these incredibly similar word pairs strange. I'm at a loss and can't decide whether they are only two real word combinations or all these in their distinctions. I think, it could be a stronger argument in favour of the supposition about null "q"-character. On the other hand, in this case, if we mentally take away all the q-characters we get You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
The excessive richness with these words in the "balneo-" and "recies-" sections is too strange, even for incantations.
Ultimately, I'm still confused. Maybe, someone has a fresh explanation for this phenomenon.