If this comment is more prescient than silly and becomes the *basis*, nay, the genesis! for such a language in coming years, I shall be rather cross with thee.
Heheheheheh. …Cross.
(Update: grammar error corrected thanks to jdporter.)
| [reply] |
World peace would be so easy if we just all spoke reconstructed "DNAish" ...
| [reply] |
Well, you can use my script to see if you can find the communist manifesto in DNA. Good luck with that. Since you say with such confidence that with this approach you can find it, why not give it a try? On my computer it takes 42h to search through the entire human genome, so it doesn't even take that long. Give it a try. | [reply] |
The gag was languages can be semi-arbitrary or approach total ambiguity and context sensitivity or even be written specifically to suit a use case. Since the Bible matches that pretty well—semi-arbitrary, ambiguous, context sensitive to one of the more backwards versions of the Iron Age, rewritten and pieced together from many sources, the prologue written in a resurrected language that slept a bit longer than 3 days, to suit a particular use—it is most certainly possible to adapt or create a solution to fit the premise given the 3 billion source points and their own manifold interactions. Plenty of gold to pan in them thar hills.
Since humans as a package are as much non-human as human, with upwards of 100 trillion riders with their own DNA, to say nothing of mitochondria, the data set is so incomplete as to be statistically insignificant. Though, I'll help poke a hole in my rebuttal right right now. We can presume Adam and Eve only carried human DNA and the Fruit was what gave us the rest. Of course the great apes carrying almost only human DNA might be a sticking point; or just a dialect or speech impediment. Their genome seems much more likely to match the New American Standard after all. :P
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
