[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: Fw: Arctos
At 01:43 16/05/2005 +0100, Jeff Haley wrote:
Oh I see! So what you are saying is that manuscripts written
in Latin never contained any Greek. Oh well that told me.
Except that I could probably find an awful lot of examples
very quickly that do. However that is not the case here. The
word Arctos appears in more than one Latin dictionary. At
the time of the VMS many Greek works were being recovered
either directly or via arabic sources. The words would already
have had at least an indirect Latin equivalent.
All I'm counselling is etymological caution. If your decryption is based on
a Latin plaintext, surely having one of your first decrypted words actually
being Greek somewhat weakens your claim?
Also: you must remember that many Latin words weren't invented by the
Romans. My guess would be that "arctos" only became sort-of Latinised much
later with "Ursus arctos" ("bear bear"). (And "Arcturus/i" is another word
entirely.) To assert a word is often to assert a date...
IIRC, Leonell Strong claimed to have decrypted several words that
subsequently turned out to be much later coinings than his claimed date -
all partly interpretative decryptions (whether from inherent systemic
ambiguity, or from choosing multiple code-tables) which work backwards from
cribs share this same risk...
Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: