La Mojarra

[ECOLING at aol.com]

Peter Selverstone, who so recently stated that detailed review is needed
surrounding
evidence and logic of attempts to decipher the writing system of La Mojarra,
now suddenly suggests terminating the discussion,
not merely here but anywhere.  Referring to some specific points I had made,
he says:

>If this is true, then it is unlikely that the "model for language structure,
>sign values, and spelling conventions" proposed by K & J are essentially
>correct.  Within a few years, I expect the scholarly community will achieve
>some consensus on these questions and it will be clear whether their
>hypothesis concerning the language was correct and, if correct, was
>justified.  Let's adjourn this discussion until that happens.  Peter.

A rational consensus can only be achieved if the questions ARE
explored in detail by some reasonably unbiased people.
How do we get that?

More appropriate would be if Selverstone would read carefully and critique
the most careful review to date of J&K's edifice of data and reasoning to
date,
namely my book "The Writing System of La Mojarra" (I welcome
rational critique, as I do not wish to convey anthying wrong to anyone).

More appropriate would be if he had publicly acknowledged that a review
HAS ALREADY occurred in the peer-reviewed (as he specified was needed)
International Journal of American Linguistics,
by Mesoamericanist and Epigrapher Dr. Steven Houston,
who pronounced himself unconvinced by the claims of decipherment.

Please note that I went out of my way, as I often have,
to say I think Dr. Houston may be too sceptical of the ultimate possibilities
of decipherment, I do not want to discourage others from attempting it,
from finding new analogies in glyph form or in phrasal patterns which
might lead to a breakthrough.  Nor can I be 100% certain that all or even
most of the many hypotheses of J&K are wrong.  I can only say that,
on the basis of what usually happens in decipherments, I think the balance
of evidence is now weighted against their edifice of hypotheses.
The details are in print, for anyone who wants them.
So it is clear I agree with Dr. Houston that we do not yet
have anything which counts as a decipherment.
We have only a CLAIM of decipherment.

The two are very very different.

Lloyd Anderson
Ecological Linguistics