RE: VMs: Image Source, Accuracy of Transcriptions

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > But we could argue this till the cows come home.  Until someone
> decodes the manuscript noone
> > can guess exactly what the character set really is.

> Watson, I believe you've got it.

Without dusting off my now-ancient copy of "The Annotated Shirlock Holmes",
I'd still wager that Watson never had a clue until Holmes filled him in.
Let me fill you in, Watson, because you're so off base the umpire can't find
you to call you "out".  You're back in the stands getting a dog and a
popcorn.

Scientific transcription of the VMS has nothing to do with "arguing" over
the character set.  It has to do with accurately representing what is
written.  That is the most basic step in any investigation.  EVA had one
stated purpose, and that was to "make the VMS pronounceable".  Don't ask me
what that means, but it doesn't mean "represent the glyphs as accurately as
possible".

Look at the forerunners to the EVA, and you'll see that most of them
attempted to transcribe what they saw, and only after that attempt to make
sense of it.  On every page, in every word, every letter has a space in
between it and the next.  Confined within these spaces you will find a
single glyph representation.  What's the big deal and all the deliberation
over a character set, when you have such obviously clear demarkations for
each glyph?  Every page, every word, every glyph, clearly demarked with
spaces, and you can't make a determination?  Maybe the author should have
drawn a lot of pointing fingers in bright red neon paint, would that have
helped?  I doubt it would have helped at all.  Instead he "printed" each
glyph, and sometimes used a cursive style on glyphs such as "m" and "n", but
that was natural for his time.  Each one is separately written, apart from
the next.  When they are combined, they are a "combination" glyph, but an
individual glyph just the same.  What can be more simple?

What chance have you got to decode the manuscript if you're still unwilling
to make a commitment on its glyph content?  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.  Until you
make a basic decision, you can't conduct accurate frequency counts, you
can't do accurate word length studies, you can't do mean and distance
counts, you can't do chi2, you can't do SQUAT beyond only generalized
statistics.  Without following the clear demarkations set out by a simple
author, you'll never be able to do anything more meaningful than look at all
the pretty pictures of naked women.  To some that's enough, I guess. :-)
Have you got it now, Watson?  You'll NEVER progress any further than you are
by making uninformed statements like "Until someone decodes the manuscript
noone can guess exactly what the character set really is."  You CAN'T decode
the manuscript until you've made a reasonable determination in this regard.
One must come before the other, not the other way around.

> > Noone should feel bad about WHATEVER character set they use.
>
> Here here. As long as they realize that what kind of test they perform
> MAY be affected by their transcription scheme.

And as long as they realize that their chances for success diminish to zero
the exact moment they step away from the cold hard reality of what has been
written on vellum.

GC





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