Hello Wayne and Welcome,
Please be assured that there is interest in all new ideas and
observations concerning the VMs. Understand that there are thousands
of communications filtered through this discussion group each year.
There are numerous individuals who have participated on this list for a
number of years. In addition, many have visited the list, offered
their ideas and opinions, and then moved on. Each brings to the
dicussion a unique set of interests and skills as have you. I think
in part what generates discussion are new ideas that spark interest and motivate
others who may want to undertake further analysis and
investigation. The number of responses you have already received both on
and off list should be encouraging.
You have made an observation and presented thoughts concerning the two
strings of characters presented. From my perspective, a quick observation
is that the two samples are not an exact match.
One character/glyph which may have been missed is the "flourish"
stroke above the connected 'C's (EVA sh). To say that
grammatical variations in 'words' that may be present,
while reasonable, seems to somewhat weaken the
comparison (I am, you are, he/she/it is comes to mind). So where
do we go from here? What constructive new ideas might we form?
Thank you again for your observations and comments.
Regards,
Dana Scott
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 8:02
AM
Subject: Re: VMs: evidence against line
transposition
on 4/1/05 4:03 AM, Marke Fincher at MarkeFincher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
>
>> In other words, if there are large phrasal
similarities
>> like these in the document, we can knock out Rugg
and
>> line transposition both.....
>
> There are many
repeated phrases in the VMS (of 4, 5 and 6
> words), but the author(s)
has taken steps to obscure them.
>
> Spaces have been moved and
individual symbols added (either
> systemically or arbitrarily) to hide
the repeated
> information.
Thanks for your thoughts Mark.
The approach I am taking focuses on what I
believe are such phrases.
If you have a compilation of such phrases I would
be very interested in
comparing. It might save a lot of effort. I am also
trying to
catch them in proximity to any of the words on the single label
folios, the
best cases I have of secondary indication of real underlying
meaning.
I think I have one related to a label that to me appears as
"soladg".
As to spaces moved and individual symbols added to deliberately
obscure the
information, I am not so sure it is intentional or for that
reason. I think
the differences in similar large phrases on different
folios I am collecting
may be tense related (run, ran, running),
gender/plurality related (he, him,
she, they), etc. The reason I feel
this way is because for vastly different
such phrases, the "ol" or "ox"
(depending on which alphabet you accept) and
"dg" seem to be more regular
than just random word endings in these larger
phrasal settings. I
believe with focused effort, by identifying such
phrases, one could made a
deduction about syllables such as "ox", whether
they are tense forms or
colors, etc. Of course, they could be the binary
code which might
make the larger phrasal forms just the null characters, but
one has to make
some choices on the probabilities and try to follow them to
exhaustion
rather than just list and list possibilities.
I also noted from
looking at known translated old french documents in the
Charette project,
spaces are at times left out of the script. (Of course
they would be
frequently left out if the scribe didn't speak the language
taken
down.)
On another note, I was somewhat disappointed this morning that
there was
little comment on the public list about the graphic I posted, yet
I received
six direct off list expressions of interest. When I
checked the hit log for
the site at which I posted the graphic, there are a
rather large number of
hits and several folks crawled the images directory
(there were no other
related images there, only my second grade sons photos
for a web page media
project, although I will pull together some other
examples and post them as
there seems to be interest). This makes me
wonder if this list is truly a
good way to solicit honest public
feedback. I was hoping maybe even three
or four folks might say I see
no similarity there other than what I see
elsewhere in the manuscript and I
believe you are chasing cloud bunnies, or
an opinion that yes, it looks
somewhat interesting to me. There was nothing
like that on the public
list, and even Nick, whose comment resulted in the
post, didn't directly
opine afterward? Was this politeness Nick? I can take
anyone's honest
opinion on the issue, and would welcome opinions that cut
off an avenue of
effort I am chasing. Yet off the list I got comments
pointing out in my
color markings I left out more similarities like the "am"
form or even the
whole word after "ocar"... Or suggestions that applying a
fuzzy
analysis to the EVA transcript does turn up larger phrases.
What
gives?
I have a thick skin, I can take the brunt of opinions
whether they are for
or against an idea floated. I can respect the
opinions of professional
linguists such as Jacques, but carry on where I
have direct experience that
I believe differs. I am willing to
work hard and review images of the
original folios ad infinitum (and I
believe this is necessary because
looking at them even casually raises
questions that point out the
transcriptions in EVA alphabet depended on
judgments on glyphs that i don't
share [i.e., "g" in the script taken down
as "a" in the transcript on
occasion.) But despite this level of self
assurance, to me it is pointless
to put up opinions to this list if folks
on it are willing only to write me
directly but not express their opinions
on the list. It isn't like this is
academia with careers on the line
for possibly expressing an opinion? It
presents to a newcomer the
impression that older participants feel dominated
or subject to ridicule
here. It seems futile to keep posting to the list as
a whole if the
only opinions that come back one way or the other come by
private
communication. Why not just fork off a private group? Perhaps
one
should infer the on list silence is a polite way of saying the
similarities
you assert are in fact cloud bunnies and move on
elsewhere?
For what it's
worth...WLD
______________________________________________________________________
To
unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body
saying:
unsubscribe vms-list
|