Re: Cipher vs Language

[Rene Zandbergen <r_zandbergen@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- GC <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

(Transcribing from a message by Jorge Stolfi)

> I could easily take your own words and rewrite
> them briefly thus:
> 
> "Still, it is strange that people find the
> Language Theory almost as likely
> as the CryptoTheory. Scores of professional and
> amateur
> Linguists have tried to crack the "language code"
> for almost 90 years, and
> have made absolutely *zero* progress. Worse, the
> Language camp cannot
> even explain away the many arguments that point to
> the VMS *not* being
> language."

> This has every bit the validity of your statement,
> only the object of derision being changed to agree
> with my current viewpoint.  

It would be helpful if these many arguments that
the VMs is not language could be presented.
The only one I am aware of is that the language
in question (if it is one) has not been identified.
But there are many that are in favour of the MS
being plain language, written in some ideosyncratic
script.

I am not too much in favour of the Chinese theory,
myself, but if I cannot provide any clear arguments
why it should be wrong (and I cannot),
then I am not going to try to impose my opinion
on anyone. Same with glossolalia, same with
verbose cipher, same with artificial language.

On the topic of the doodles on f1r:
OK, upside-down they could be argued to look like
a Chinese charactar. But, right side up, one
looks exactly like an old Greek Aries symbol,
which, in a Medieval European MS that has herbal,
medicinal and astrological content, seems like
a more likely identification. In my opinion of
course :-)

Cheers, Rene


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com