Re: VMs: Strange pair statistics

["Jeff" <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nick Pelling incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote
on 16 January 2004 11:53


> Hi Jeff,
>
> At 23:57 15/01/2004 +0000, Jeff wrote:
> >Take a look at this table of the top 21 VMS EVA pairs. <...>
> >Now if we take as read that certain combinations are single glyphs.
> >Surely the combination ho must be placed in this category with
> >reference to the above table. It is on the steepest part of the curve.
>
> I believe you're mainly looking at the "cho" statistics (as "ch" is
plainly
> intended to be read as a single glyph). IIRC, "cho" appears a lot more in
> Language A than in Language B, though I don't recall what the relative
> proportions are when you remove verbose cipher-like pairs ("ol", "or",
etc).
>
> >I came across this tonight while I was checking something else out.
> >I must admit that I don't know where to go from here. This makes me
> >think hoax more than ever. I cannot explain this any other way.
>
> IMO, if you'd started from glyphs rather than from strokes, a lot of these
> mystifications would probably not have arisen in your mind - frankly, the
> VMs is mysterious enough without working so hard to make it even more
> problematic. :-o

Well you don't have a convert yet! I have tried substituting for what can be
considered as
single glyphs and this produces even more troubling anomalies. Words would
either have to
be heavily abbreviated as you suggest, or words span VMS word boundaries.
However, the
things I have found seem to suggest that abbreviation would not be the best
explanation
on its own.

When starting to look at some of the ciphers of the time it is clear that
they mainly fall outside the scope of what we see in the VMS. The characters
may be similar but the method is not.
If we consider this a derivative of some known method then there should be
enough of the
underlying process left to get a foothold.

I know I might be totally wrong in my assumptions, but at the moment nothing
seems to fit
with the pure abbreviation/cipher model.

Did you note the fact that 'ho' should also be considered part of a single
glyph?

Jeff.

>
> Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
> unsubscribe vms-list
>

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