Re: VMs: Mixtures of languages in the VMS

[Dennis <tsalagi@xxxxxxxx>]

Nick Pelling wrote:
> 
> One piece of evidence which I suggest strongly contradicts this second
> point of view is that many, many words in the VMs appear combinatorial -
> [qo|o][l][t|k|ch]e[e][dy|ky], or dai[i][i][n|r] etc - which (I believe)
> fails to accord with any known languages, whether taken singly or
> together... apart from (a) completely artificial languages, (b) artificial
> memory systems (where names denote addresses within a taxonomy, similar to
> mnemotechnics, Lullian systems, etc), or (c) numbering systems (like Roman
> numerals).

	This makes sense.

> Structurally, the closest match with the VMs would appear to be either an
> "accessorised number code", where words are converted to numbers (and those
> numbers then obfuscated), or a wholly artificial language (though, strictly
> speaking, these are rarely combinatorial). I'm saying this not because I
> particularly want either of these last two ideas to be true, but because I
> can argue the case for either of these without having to jump through
> endless hoops.
> 
> Perhaps it's time to crossing things off the list, rather than continually
> adding to it? Yes, the different explanations for the VMs are all
> *possible*... but not *equally possible*, surely? :-o

	I agree.  One frames a hypothesis, using Occam's Razor
- 
the simplest explanation to fit all the known facts. 
Then see where the 
hypothesis takes you.  So you've got to make *some*
assumptions to get anywhere!

	I think you've got the right idea, and encourage you
to continue!

Dennis
--------------------------------
[This E-mail scanned for viruses]

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