Re: VMs: Blanks: trying to summarize...

[knoxmix@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

    On 05 Mar 2004 20:35:07 +0000
    Nick wrote:

    The apparently boundless ability of natural languages to corroborate 
    even the unlikeliest of theories has made it hard to rule anything 
    out here. However, the key problem with seeing the VMs as a possibly 
    natural language is that its words often seems more (for want of a 
    better word) 'combinatorial' - more akin to an exotic numbering 
    system (like "turbo-charged Roman numerals") than to an actual 
    language per se.

For that reason, I first though it might be a long invocation of 
angels and demons, ranting and mumbojumbo. Someone has or someone had 
a skill for everything but I do not believe the author could keep it 
up for the length of the manuscript. 

	
    	On 05 Mar 2004 at 12:20:59 +0000 
    	Nick wrote:
    Incidentally, if you subscribe (as I do) to the theory that at least 
    some of the VMs' system is based on a verbose cipher (at the very 
    least qo, dy, or, ol), then half-spaces often make sense as a kind of 
    disambiguation mechanism.


It seems reasonable to me that the author did not create a practical 
cipher that could not be cracked by 19th century cryptanalists. Which 
leads to: 

1) It is ambiguous in that there is not enough information to be 
deciphered. But there is enough information to describe it, to take 
it apart and see how it was done. Generating look-alikes proves 
nothing although it might give some insight. Value, if any, would be 
inversely proportional to the amount of CT taken to produce the look-
alike. An humble opinion.
2) It is so convoluted with rules, exceptions, rigid sequential 
procedure and (possibly) errors as to be impractical for conveying 
information. I get the impression of blotchiness. Both impression and 
actuality, if it be so, could be caused by several things. 

. . . an inelegant enigma?


Enciphered shorthand? A type of reticent cipher (terminology?)? I do 
not think the opposite, a shorthanded cipher, would work well unless 
it were an individual, personal or small group, development. If so, 
it might bear little resemblance to any known shorthand. Are you 
including a pair-for-pair substitution under the heading of verbose? 

Entropy not considered, some ways to shorten "words" are: 
(Maybe all hashed and rehashed. I did not find a quick reference.)

1) Divide them by syllables. To the degree a script represents 
phonetic speech, it conforms to beginning, middle and ending rules 
but it is a very loose conformation. I think Barbara touched on this 
a few days ago and someone (under)stated that it is problematic to 
sort it out.
2) Write allophones with one common letter. The remainder of the 
alphabet can then be used as a form of shorthand to represent common 
strings. A natural language could be represented in that manner. 
Vowels are multi-purpose and so are some consonants in known 
languages. Statistics should be able to disprove or admit the 
possibility of that. Of itself, I do not think it would constitute a 
difficult cipher or language.
3) Use standard abbreviated writing; "thorn+t", "AIUI", and "etc.", 
e.g.  Nothing new there. 
4) Use spaces as a an artistic or convenient device. 

It appears to me that the writing was designed for the script or the 
script was designed for the writing or they matured together over a 
long period of time. Letters that do not fit well under the gallows 
avoid being under the gallows. Well, that is blotchy but if it holds 
and is not coincidental it might have implications for a 
characteristic of the cipher -- if it is a cipher. 

I copied a few words. I am right handed. It was more natural for me 
to copy with the page flipped vertically. I have not spent much time 
with the manuscript for fiddling with the transcriptions. 

I do not subscribe to anything yet. 


Ciao .......... Knox

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