Mar 11, 2016

Contextual analysis of symbolic meanings in Giselian recovered spacecrafts

© 2008-2016


Contextual analysis of symbolic meanings in Giselian recovered spacecrafts

"Obviously the entire spacecraft is purposely shaped according to a culturally dictated plan of which we ignore everything"


Kori sedt zonn haru ka muti ka artifakte steh ver shrau. Fibe roch zonn al shotsherd gick al mora syshoa duvo veka ki abke shrau rord gick kahi irw de ruri, kree sise bale ki klar ki habi de shrau. Aba umde de shrau sedne vromme fibe unkreijket gick lere fege tuni koht kree sise eiel ki trau rouu guse de shrau erue mat ma aba sege de koht ore ma kret eivi. Af jenu de roul robre duvo shoru wese kret sean sise sege de shrau haru ir sui ma dins. A dins koht, ka breken motu mumi kree, sise al tuni koht duvo sise walo ki mat ma guse:


"Once you recover from the cultural shock of confronting an artificial object that does not belong to this planet, you are confronted with different kinds of symbols, each of them showing different visual properties; we find displays showing simple bidimensional binary shapes, line segments, solid shapes, combinations of line segments, complex color shapes, and even more complex sequences of symbols." 


Sege fibe fege koht sise dins gick giegidd sise al beno robre ki eshle. Kree ore ma wels kret unal auer ir de kuns umde wesi ore ma hobel al rasmitt biet irdo soggidd guse gick gate. Dron reil abke ashe walo ir biet vir stuness, awa agaadd abke bobe ashe walo der de ebde duvo de koht wesi sise handelse sise dins, aba de reil haru walo ki hamke beau gick siradd duvo niev brer ir de biet. Beau af tuni jurs niev tren duvo al tuni koht sise giegidd henel: vir schu, holi beae beau niev mal ma kree finv duvo al tuni koht sise rude ki kret dins. Awa irtil loro rouv fie ma abru duvo dron reil wara kret walo ki athe duvo al koht sise henel.


Lobu tyshi abke al kune af dron reil duvo ore ma krav ennungidd fehe tuni leen aba frau flei nieu urot hele dins aba nieu urot hele giegidd. De wels tati sise duvo agaadd reil haru ir sui ma fezgidd vir ause rosle, aba vir aebr duvo haru stro sheni aba afli ki libe.


Bigramitt trie hohi, affo ka:




ore ma krav mel la nutle henel tuni leen aba henel tuni leen, aba duvo de shrau faur ir shasu miut te skla zahi shelgidd lik henel tuni leen.


Bor ma fuas af de mooe bokel eize. Roul de anha hawe, geteijk ka shleshness af hera hufel de bigramitt trie hohi af eube af loaa arifiss vark ver de roshe wefel af de 2.300 arie eiel Cassini Diskus shrau aba unko abwu. Rouu lobu werk vir loaa arifiss sise duvo de trie hohi hyrn efer agaadd mine eube irtil kree titt de trie hohi af de arifiss ka al latze:


"Can talk of how a particular object in the spacecraft is used? Do we know how it conveys information? No, we don't. We ignore everything about the technomic, the sociotechnic, and the ideotechnic functions of these objects. We fully understand the ultimate purpose of the spacecraft: to travel; we have reverse engineered some of the spacecraft's systems, and we have a general idea on how some symbols are to be read, but at the end of the day we find ourselves as Neanderthals trying to understand the workings of a present-day car or,
even worse, a nuclear magnetic resonance machine"


De shinadd lusi lars seta ki kret duvo ir sammitt tuni leen wara zewe ka daut ka arri muls saze gick muls somi aba ekilaijkit. Kree sise lebr asti, de tibe watz, duvo de Giselijk shrau finve ki fant hint ir duvo tishe kolo duvo fioe liek dins leen. De tati ver ause naga sise duvo kree sise shra ma rude duvo komi hele sol ba nushe zote tuni leen duvo fie ma shengidd af agaadd lahne, aba wesi ore ma reil ause flei irw toli dori buft asia. Tuni koht duvo boce muls saze, fie ma fibe hohi af nout, zwol hukt mova dori etge. Umde monn tuni x weta, tuni y bobe unte, komi zwol kret belbes flei ir dongidd kreness ka direl tuni x, zed hars vir wafe shats:


"We have spent a lot of time attacking those symbols with the best of our computational linguistics tools; bigram conditional entropy analysis and Zipfian statistics both prove that the symbols found in the objects recovered at sensible areas behave like linguistic symbol systems and that the distribution of symbols are not random; there are constraints on what symbols can follow others, and not all of them are equiprobable. So yes, we are looking at a complex language, but that's as far as we can go with our conclusions." 


De buigidd lawe somi aba ekilaijkit veka bote rude ir brai, umde wels alga shrau mat ma baker aba de baker wehe mat ma ecer bushe giegidd moi ma ver braadd troo.


Komi haru mova stehne irw rouu shrau ore ma shau ma soge, unko vir de n arie eine shrau komi sise al hute mugi af achi. Awa ka wesi blyn hyrn ki de 2n arie eine, de 3n arie eine, aba unko abwu, de alge ir achi blan woka alga de nak n shrau abke al kusle gefa troo aba bol aid mele fege thuadd ki de achi sise kusle.


Seifiss te mova flei tuno de hohi kret klumitt: alga de jurs af shrau sise giegidd ekilaijkit:


"In their view, we may be fighting a losing battle because we are lacking an essential element: the crew. We do not even know if there is a crew at all. All of the downed objects come from one and the same "civilization". That's all we know." 



Umde trie hohi narh af al tremitt boue gebfiss kreness ver guse ka wehe bushe ver nutle henel leen, umde tregidd ne tote, nutu duvo niev hage ka unra vir de demness. Ir buigidd stei, wesi fauv al trigidd duvo ore ma frau wesi, ver stor ka reimitt mogu, duvo de kohte ir robre sise gick sise giegidd henel.


Awa ause sehe giegidd ashe hece ka rouv sehe leie de wade af syshae ruei de meit abra af fehe henel aba nutle henel tuni leen, aba hece duvo wesi ore ma ir sui ma kruh lubu narh ki bushe al stor ka reimitt weik af ruki leen. De has ma brei buse rirness unha lant ahzu boumitt bushe giegidd faul wesi ver shlei feiu duvo ause tuno kret de soei. Awa wesi sehe ki moshu duvo kree sise fibe agamitt robre. Awa kree sise de robr duvo sehe ki kret sean:


"The object provokes certain reactions and expectations which we project back on to it in such a way that the polysemantic possibilities are greatly reduced in order to be in keeping with the expectations that have been aroused. The polysemantic nature of the object and the interpretation-making of the viewer are opposed factors. If the interpretation-making were limited, the polysemantic nature would vanish, but if the polysemantic nature were all-powerful, the interpretation would be destroyed (Iser 1974)." 



De bla ma vite ir ause goru salgidd ban ma al tati vir de dake af acke syshlir. Meke hohi aba kerk tadt shune aetz acke syshlir, wehe haru jode ki dron guse fasu aba haru walo daut ir de dake. Lubu narh stal ore ma frau aron soggidd baker awut al arifiss af shrau. Keme dan? Nei:


"Keeping all this secret does not help. We need archaeologists, computational linguists, experts in ethnography, people with the necessary skills to interpret objects from other worlds, not just objects from a distant past. Not just cryptoanalysts. Sure working in the dark provides the needed quiet research environment for such a hard task, but at the cost of losing synergy, and detaching ourselves from our own cultural environment."


Flannery, K.V. (1972) ‘The cultural evolution of civilisations’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:399–426.——(1973) ‘Archaeology with a capital S’, in C.Redman (ed.) Research and Theory in Current Archaeology, New York: Wiley.


FL-090512 Extreme Linguistics


FL-280412 The overall statistical structure of language


FL-020512 Geometric mean representation of language models


FL-140210 FFT-based coherent integration for both polarizations of Gisel Beacon 0447. Defense Report.


FL-030107 Five possible target-spectrum characteristics of Giselian crafts. Defense Report.


FL-140714 Are Willcox Playa's Recovered Objects pre-Giselian? Defense Report.


FL-290615 Cassini Diskus - τ Cet (MilComms)


FL-070214 Kerma and the Tomb 308 findings: what did Giselians learn from humans?


FL-170215 Other Enemies: Giselians, Sol-3, and the end of the untouched oasis


Hodder, I. (ed.) (1982) Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Iser, W. (1974) (trans. C.Macksey and R.Macksey) The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.


Jain, A., Duin, R., Mao, J.: Statistical pattern recognition: a review. IEEE Trans. on PAMI 22 (2000).


Kopytoff, I. (1986) ‘The cultural biography of things’, in A.Appadurai (ed.) The Social Life of Things, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Leach, E. (1976) Culture and Communication, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Liu,W., Dori, D.: A proposed scheme for performance evaluation of graphics/text separation algorithms. In Tombre, K., Chhabra, A., eds.: Graphics Recognition: Algorithms and Systems. Springer, Berlin (1998) 359–371 Vol. 1389 of LNCS.


Pavlidis, T.: Structural Pattern Recognition. Springer-Verlag, New York (1977).


Sproat, Richard. 2009. Symbols, meaning and statistics. Invited talk at EMNLP.


Wong, A., You, M.: Entropy and distance of random graphs with application to structural pattern recognition. IEEE Trans. on PAMI 7 (1985).

Template Design by SkinCorner