RE: VMs: Finding_02

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxx>]

Nick wrote:

> ...to be more precise, the <ain aiin aiiin> pattern
> seems to me most likely
> to be some form of steganographic Roman numerals: and
> as I don't see the
> evidence for the VMS' being an obviously
> mono-alphabetic cipher, I don't
> buy into Teague numbering either.

Nick,

You keep poking holes in my heart and ask me not to bleed! :-)
God I love it!!!!

Seriously..... never mind... I just can't get serious about this.
Every time I look at a post with these strings attached, <dain
daiin daiiin>, this looks seriously impressive.  And when we can
narrow our discussion down to <ain aiin aiiin>, well that's even
more impressive.  Any strings the length of these characters
*must* be significant, yes?

In my rhetoric things don't seem quite so impressive.  <dain> is
transcribed {8an}, <daiin> is transcribed {8am}, and <daiiin> is
transcribed with the {8a} plus a single m with three humps instead
of two, the same as you'll find in a slew of common cipher
alphabets from the 15th/16th century.

It's not the transcription alphabet that is important, but the
count of actual characters we're dealing with.  If <ain> is really
only {an}, if <aiin> is really nothing more than {am}, and if
<aiiin} is really nothing more than {am} with an extra hump, well,
the significance of these is nothing more than the significance of
the {89} or the {oe} endings, since they're all TWO GLYPH strings,
and not strings as long as five places, as <aiiin> suggests.

Seems to me that if you're actually counting strokes in <aiiin>,
then you're stuck somewhere between reality and EVA.  No group
that viewed the originals or early photographs EVER separated
these elements, and now that we're gaining substantial color
copies, it has become obvious that their first assumptions were
quite correct.  Copyflow and poor xeroxing is what caused the
major confusion, in my view, but now we have a chance to correct
that.

If any doubts in your mind remain about the glyph representations,
I direct you back to the hi-res images of 87v that were posted - I
want so much to say it was Renee that posted them, but I apologize
if I am wrong on this identification.

My question would be - if you are NOT separating the strokes in
dain, daiin, daiiin, dumass, then how do these reflect roman
numerals any better than say, 89, oe, os, oy as word endings?

GC

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