Re: VMs: Arguments against a code book?

[Dennis <tsalagi@xxxxxxxx>]

Rene Zandbergen wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I have a rather more liberal interpretation of the
> codebook question. This would be: is it possible
> to translate the VMs into a plain text using
> a code book (independent of the question of
> whether it was created that way).
> This is equivalent with: is there a way to translate
> each VMs 'word' always by the same plaintext word
> and get a readable text (barring mistakes by the
> author).

	A problem here is that the 'spelling' system is likely
to have been rather lax.  We need to allow for that.  


	But this is an excellent approach!

> This ignores the question whether or not there
> is some kind of scheme (e.g. using Roman numerals)
> to make the word-to-word translation.

	Perhaps we could deal with that later.  

> The main problem with this code book hypothesis
> comes from the occasional word repeats (several
> qokedy's or serveal daiin's in succession), but
> this is not necessarily a prohibitive problem.

	Rugg said that these are 'very' common.  Just how
common are they?  Not very, I thought.  

	As I have previously noted,  one may see 'very very',
'black, black', 'stupid, stupid' , in English.  So
repeated words are not unknown in natural languages. 
Glen's remark that the repeated 'words' may in fact be
different is also very apposite.  

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