The only one that asked about "CODEX"
It is the true and only way to really UNDERSTAND what the writter has to say
Well, I will not be using this approach to any text. It seems to me that there are three issues which render the approach logically incoherent. (I'm using Betacode with the SPIonic font
so that I can represent the Greek most accurately.)
. [face=spionic]maxana/[/face] vs. [face=spionic]mhxanh/[/face]. Pindar used the first pronunciation, Plato the second. But it's the same word, yet should have rather different meanings in each dialect according to your codex scheme. To which dialect of Greek does this apply, and why? Leading to...
. Why should this key, as you would have it, be embedded in Greek and not, say, !Kung or Tibetan? Moreover, how is it that a language which we know has undergone so many changes should? Why Greek? Why not proto-Greek? Or Indo-european? Does the world reconfigure itself everytime a new dialect forms?
. This system does not distinguish [face=spionic]no/moj[/face] vs. [face=spionic]nomo/j[/face], or [face=spionic]ki/wn[/face] vs. [face=spionic]kiw=n[/face] or indeed any of the other words that differ only by accent.
Finally, taking a little but complete sentence from Homer (A.29):
[face=spionic]th\n d' e)gw\ ou) lu/sw[/face]
Why should this simple statement need to be imbued with some hidden message? And if it should, what in the world is it, and what does it tell us?