Answer · Pictish symbol stones

The published measures do not reliably separate writing from non-linguistic systems; better measures exist…

The published measures do not reliably separate writing from non-linguistic systems; better measures exist and classify the Pictish symbols as non-linguistic.

Most likelyAnswers 1 questionPublished0

Where it stands

Most likelyIts tests partly supported it: two pieces of evidence for, none against. It needs two reviews to be accepted.

What it predicts

On a larger comparison set, the 2010 cut-offs misclassify several non-linguistic systems.

What would rule it out

The 2010 method with its published cut-offs classifies a large independent comparison set correctly.

Evidence 2 for · none against

Linearising carvings into strings and archaic-script features may bias such tests.

Suggestive

FOR

None of the previously proposed methods were useful as published on the larger comparison set.

Supported

FOR

The questions it answers

Can corpus statistics tell whether a small symbol corpus like the Pictish one is language?

Part of Are the Pictish symbols a writing system?

Most likelyThe published measures do not reliably separate writing from non-linguistic systems; better measures exist…

Cite it

Mysteries Department. (2026). The published measures do not reliably separate writing from non-linguistic systems; better measures exist… [Answer ANS0CQHAKZ6712B]. https://mysteriesdept.com/r/ANS0CQHAKZ6712B

@misc{mysteriesdept_ans0cqhakz6712b,
  title     = {The published measures do not reliably separate writing from non-linguistic systems; better measures exist…},
  author    = {{Mysteries Department}},
  year      = {2026},
  note      = {Answer, catalog key ANS0CQHAKZ6712B},
  url       = {https://mysteriesdept.com/r/ANS0CQHAKZ6712B}
}