Re: VMs: Can one "prove" a hoax? - and a request.

["Rafal T. Prinke" <rafalp@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Rene Zandbergen wrote:

> At the same time, we have found (to the best
> of my knowledge) not the merest piece of evidence
> that the MS is a hoax. All possible signs of
> randomness are lacking. All curves that have
> been created to show some property of the text
> (word lengths, entropies, zipf law, character
> counts, what have you) show a reasonable shape.
> Not a flat curve in sight.

But you seem to assume that a hoax must have
the features typical for glossolalia or "gibberish".
I don't think a linguistic hoax would necessarily
be like that. 

One of the obvious suspects is Kelley and perhaps
it might be interesting to see the statistical
properties of the two Enochian languages that we know
he "produced" (either consciously, unconsciously
or through angelic intervention).

This would perhaps be far from hard proof, but if
the relevant curves in those texts and the VMS
look similar, it might suggest the same "mindset"
of the author, or the same native language, or at least
the same "psycholinguistic profile". My own competence
in statistics shows the very flat curve you mention,
so I cannot do that myself. 

Donald Laycock did statistical research on the Enochian
which he mentions in the introduction to his Dictionary
- but there are no details. Perhaps Jacques Guy knows
more about the nature of Donald Laycock's computer analysis
of the two Enochian languages?

I silently assume that Enochian *is* considered a hoax
- but there is no proof of it, either. I have Laycock's
dictionary upstairs and am too lazy to go and check
it right now, but I recall he concluded that the "second
Enochian" (the one with English translations) had 
many features of a genuine language.

Best regards,

Rafal
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list