RE: Cipher vs Language

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Email is a great tool for making
> enemies, it seems. I am sure that you
> would have none of that "gut reaction"
> if you heard me say that in
> person --- say over a pizza and beer.
> (Not even if you had to pay for
> the pizza. 8-)

Enemies - whew!  I'm afraid I don't know anyone
here well enough to consider them enemies, nor
even wish such a thing.  I do have my position,
and I usually state it matter-of-factly.  I have
several *friends* in relation to other studies who
hold totally opposite views and argue them
heatedly, but we've never managed to take that to
the *enemy* stage.  We generally find that heated
discussion brings out the best in both sides and
aids in the learning experience.

> Those constraints appear to have ruled
> out all plausible encryption
> systems, except for codebook; just as
> they appear to have ruled out
> all plausible natural languages, except
> monosyllabic ones.

I for one have not ignored the various statistics
relating to the cipher, and I for one don't
consider them "constraints".  I certainly can't
speak for Philip, but I consider these rather
telling artifacts of the cipher, and I've never
once thought it was some sort of code.

> Not so: the language camp now has good
> evidence that the physical
> words (space-delimited strings) are
> indeed linguistic words (units of
> meaning), and that their internal
> structure is syllable-like.

The same thing can be accomplished with an
algorithmically generated table, never leaving
western language structure and without introducing
an exotic language into the equation.  Once I can
come up with a transcription alphabet suitable to
everyone that doesn't include a slew of
unnecessary characters, I'll be presenting this
possibility in detail.

Meanwhile, congratulations on your professorship,
and good luck with the Chinese Theory thing.  The
Martian Theory is one I could sign on with -
Martian Mantras, there's an idea.   :-)

GC