[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: Babelfish translation [plus question for Dana]
At 07:20 15/11/2003 +1000, Jacques Guy wrote:
i -> "stump dot" (sd -- it's all right: there aren't any stump-dogs!)
n -> "stump awning" (sa)
m -> "stump awning awning" (saa)
u -> "hook stump" (hs)
Decipher this now: saasdsasdsaahssaa
*sigh* I've been trying to do this with VMs pairs all year, so...
saa.sd.sa.sd.saa.hs.saa = m.i.n.i.m.u.m
I'd actually find the word even harder to read in Gothic Latin than in
verbose cipher - if you write a stroke transcription (using just r, i and
u) it looks like
I'm sure that's how EVA appears to some people too. :-)
I leave you to apply a polyalphabetic cipher on it
My point exactly! :-)
BTW: one problem with pairifying the VMs is <o>, as it is such an
incredibly multi-function glyph:-
* in <ol> and <or>, it looks like the left-hand half of a verbose cipher pair
* in <qo>, <cho> and <eo>, it looks like the right-hand half of a verbose
* at the start of a word (typically before a gallows), it looks like a
Greek omicron ("the")
However, (IIRC) these three basic cases capture the vast majority of
instances of <o>: and these groups are also very distinctive of the
Language A / Language B differences. Most relevant to this thread is that
(perhaps surprisingly) only rarely are these three <o>-cases ambiguous.
My interpretation of this is that <o> appears to have been designed to have
different meanings/functions in different contexts, to make the whole
system appear more like a language (but without actually being one).
Perhaps ciphers where <o> acts like a simple "shift" character would have
been too obvious for our code-maker, and he/she wanted to go one better... :-)
Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: