3 ms·
The paper itself is here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02639904.2019.1599566 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02639904.2019.1... Fr
by Kalium 7y ago
The paper itself is here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02639904.2019.1599566 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02639904.2019.1...
From the introduction:
> Past scholarly attempts at solving the writing system are far too numerous to mention individually, but none was successful in any way, because every attempt simply used the wrong approach
This is rather a strong claim (which I am not equipped to evaluate). The author goes on to argue that the manuscript can be understood as an example of a long-hypothesized language with minimal written artifacts.
- bloak 7y ago"Published online: 29 Apr 2019", says that page, and the article itself says "May 15, 2019", but it looks like Gerard Cheshire published his theory in 2017, because here's a plausible-sounding rebuttal from November 2017: https://ciphermysteries.com/2017/11/10/gerard-cheshire-vulgar-latin-siren-call-polyglot https://ciphermysteries.com/2017/11/10/gerard-cheshire-vulga...
- jfengel 7y agoAnd indeed, it was discussed on Hacker News at least once before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19491517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19491517