Extraterrestrial Intelligence)<fnref n="2" />—will only be considered briefly here (cf. also D. G. Brin, 2006; Grinspoon, 2007; Musso, 2012, p. 44; Gertz, 2016). Experts in cultural and planetary risk assessment would have a much stronger say in this respect (cf. Tarter, 2000, p. 727; Neal, 2014).

Whether or not the idea of potential life on other relatively well-known celestial bodies (e.g., the Europa and Callisto moons of Jupiter; the Enceladus moon of Saturn) or in farther sectors of space (e.g., twenty, thirty, or more light-years away) is supported in the future, the current analysis will make its point. Details, arguments, and speculations on the prospects of the emergence of non-terrestrial life—simple, complex, intelligent, or sentient—can be consulted in the literature (see Shklovskii and Sagan, 1966; Tipler, 1980; D. G. Brin, 1983; Mayr, 1985; Fogg, 1987; Drake and Sobel, 1992; Dickinson and Schaller, 1994; Heidmann, 1995; Clark, 2000; Aldiss, 2006; Kukla, 2001; Cohen and Stewart, 2002; Webb, 2002; Shostak and Barnett, 2003; Ward, 2005; Davies, 2010; Shuch, 2011; Vakoch, 2014a; Bains and Schulze-Makuch, 2016; Zackrisson et al., 2016; Dunér, 2017; Kipping, 2020; Westby and Conselice, 2020).

While not as expensive as waging long-term wars, attempting to engage with exploration of space and non-terrestrial interlocutors, humanoid or not, is still costly for the finances of the state and its taxpayers given the technological requirements (cf. Matloff, 2005; Benford, Benford, and Benford, 2010; Billingham and Benford, 2011). In addition, such projects are also responsive to the generous donations of wealthy and concerned people (Tarter, 2000, p. 725; Ghosh, 2020).

In the same manner, the predictable or unpredictable ramifications of contact for humanity have been carefully discussed in the literature (cf. Davies, 1995; Kukla, 2001; Cohen and Stewart, 2002; Michaud, 2007; Gardner, 2007; Harrison, 2011; Baum, Haqq-Misra, and Domagal-Goldman, 2011; Vakoch, 2014a, Vakoch, 2014b; Michael, 2014). The *giggle factor* in the popular belief about contacting ETIs, the reigning skepticism in political and/or in certain scientific circles, and the constant financial worries are comprehensible regarding such an ambitious agenda (Tarter, 2000; Michaud, 2007, p. 359; Ćirković, 2013; Ghosh, 2020). Yet, the eagerness to recognize this possible situation implies that scientific and social circles should be better prepared in case it occurs. The axiom “Fortune favors the prepared minds” is most useful today as it was in the past (Michaud, 2007, p. 358, attributes the saying to the French

<footnote n="2">2. By way of parenthesis, *active SETI* (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is relative to the search and retrieval of ET messages *versus* METI (Messaging to Extraterrestrial Intelligence), which is concerned with the design and active transmission of messages from our home-world (cf. METI.org, 2020). CETI is another acronym in use that refers to Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligences (see Westby and Conselice, 2020).</footnote>
scientist Louis Pasteur). Thus, apart from refining and upgrading the virtue of patience and any subservient technology, the anthropocentric variable(s) favoring (or not) the contact and post-contact situation(s) should be examined.

As answers are sought out, the different scenarios presented below will draw attention to the utter difficulty of the endeavor. Possibilities should not be dismissed, though over-optimism regarding a comprehensive strategy for contact with alien races should be tackled for now with caution and reservation (cf. D. G. Brin, 1983; Billingham and Benford, 2011; Denning, 2014; Wolfram, 2018).

The language of the essay is simple and scientific at the same time. Soaking the readership with technical terminology is avoided, unless the immediate context requires it.

## 2. Background

During the last two centuries, human scholars have devised strategies regarding how to potentially communicate with the “others” and leave behind the loneliness. The gamut ranges from kerosene-based visual signaling to naturally-developed human languages, mathematical conventions, radio signals, laser beacons, visual-symbolic codes, self-replicating robotic envoys, or to the dispatch of space probes carrying a range of messages and artifacts. The task of mentioning and explaining all of them is demanding and it certainly requires a book-format or a multi-tome edition.

We begin the references with the peculiar proposal of the Austrian astronomer Joseph Johann von Littrow (1781–1840) who considered for some time a method to carry a message to non-terrestrial beings living in the vicinity of our planet. Once some colossal furrows in geometric patterns had been dug out on the Sahara Desert, they had to be filled up with water, plus kerosene atop. The final act was to set in flames the kerosene in an attempt to convey a message to any off-world neighbor or at least to let them know of our existence (cf. Jarrell, 2007).

A number of later attempts and projects are cited in Michaud (2007, pp. 372–373) and Garber (2014, pp. 24–30), among others. The British scientist Francis Galton (1892; see especially Tredoux, 2018, Appendix D) suggested more than a century ago a language composed of “light flashes” in the guise of dots, dashes, and lines, similar to the Morse code, to attract attention from the “Martians”. Around the same time (1899), an alternative communication plan—devised by the French amateur astronomer A. Mercier—including several reflectors to be placed on the Eiffel Tower so they could focus the received sunlight (interrupted with a movable screen) towards the targeted planet, Mars (Reddy, 2012, pp. 166–167; Vakoch and Dowd, 2015, p. 215). In 1920, H. W. Nieman
and C. W. Nieman proposed a mathematical approach to building up a common language. Later, in 1952, Lancelot T. Hogben presented the "Astraglossa [= Star Language], or First Steps in Celestial Syntax," based on *number concept* and *knowledge of celestial events*, to be viewed as universal standards. Cocconi and Morrison (1959) suggested in a seminal article the use of radio waves of 21.1 cm for interstellar communication. Hans Freudenthal (1960) proposed "LINCOS," a portmanteau for *Lingua Cosmica*, a complex and dense mathematical-logical code intended to be transmitted via radio signals at different wavelengths.<fnref n="3" /> In the same year, Frank D. Drake (1961), then at Cornell University, engaged in *Project Ozma* to possibly detect signals from outer space civilizations nearby the stars ε Eridani and Tau Ceti. In 1961, another mathematician, Solomon W. Golomb, in a challenging action to prior "cosmic languages" based on terrestrial-like logic, suggested *prime number sequences* or *arithmetic progressions*.

The Polish writer Stanisław Lem (1999, p. 73) names among other projects, LOGLAN (a portmanteau of “logical” and “language”) as a possible vehicle for communication due to its inherent features. Vito and Oehrle (1990) rekindled the idea of languages based on science, especially on chemistry. Lemarchand and Lomberg (1996) discuss symmetry properties and aesthetic principles that could offer some communicative advantages when conducting the search in space along a SETI-like program. More recently, Canadian scientists Dutil and Dumas (1999), drawing on Freudenthal’s work (1960), developed a language based on a set of symbols, starting from simple concepts and moving on to increasingly complex topics, e.g., the building blocks of life on Earth, the range of human sensitivity to light and sound, the image of the biosphere, including the chemical compositions of the continents, oceans, and atmosphere, etc. The basics of the message were conceived as some kind of cosmic *Rosetta Stone*, to be sent via the Ukrainian radar transmitter at Evpatoria (see Grinspoon, 2007, on *Cosmic Call I* [= CC-1]). G. Matloff (2005), in the spirit of John von Neumann’s self-replicating machines (cf. Burks, 1966), investigates the feasibility of deep-space intelligent probes as explorers and messengers to stars. Benford, Benford, and Benford (2010), while analyzing the cost effectiveness, considered the construction of high-power transmitters / beacons by senders and/or receivers as a viable means of communication—intentional or not—and also cosmic areas to focus on and avoid for the transmissions.<fnref n="4" /> In turn, SETI scientist Douglas A. Vakoch (2011a) draws on semiotics and suggests iconic and pictorial narratives as a potential means to reach fruition in this sense. Atri, DeMarines, and Haqq-Misra (2011) suggest a

<footnote n="3">3. Cf. reviews by Hogben (1961) and Blum (1962).</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4. See also Lemarchand and Lomberg (1996) regarding a “mutually guessable unique point” along the Milky Way for the communicating parties.</footnote>
protocol for the construction of an interstellar message in order to maximize the probability that it is understood. The primary factors to be examined are *Signal encoding*; *Message length*; *Information content*; *Anthropocentrism*; *Transmission method*; and *Transmission periodicity*. Echoing Vito and Oehrle (1990), the team Atri, DeMarines, and Haqq-Misra (2011) propose reliance on “a simple physical or mathematical language to communicate both the encoding scheme and the content”. In the endeavor of CETI-like projects, Westby and Conselice (2020, p. 17), draw on a very compelling variable, “It is clear that the lifetime of a[n extraterrestrial; *our note*] communicating civilization [= L] is the key aspect within this problem, and very long lifetimes are needed for those within the Galaxy to contain even a few possible active contemporary civilizations”; cf. also M. Shermer’s (2002) arguments in this context.

All these efforts show (that) there is an incremental understanding of the cosmos and the existential parameters of life. Yet, the criteria used in devising and classifying the contact channels are generally based so far on (a) the *current* understanding of our—selfish—needs, (b) the *current* understanding of the physics of space, and (c) the *current* understanding of communication (cf. Michaud, 2007, p. 372;<fnref n="5" /> Vakoch, 2011b, p. 377; Atri, DeMarines, and Haqq-Misra, 2011; Denning, 2014; Wolfram, 2018; Melka and Místecký, 2020, p. 210; Westby and Conselice, 2020). It seems that there is no definite solution to this, because no perfect and suitable contact *language* for the myriad of circumstances bounding another assumed civilization has been pinpointed or (yet) agreed upon. Although not directly related to the subject matter, Umberto Eco (1997) is worthwhile consulting due to important hints about multiple settings. In this direction, embedding deliberately (or not) features that rely on the human world-vision into these codes is considered to be the primary difficulty.

### 3. Hello ETI!

The pictorial message (Fig. 1) is actually an icon, not only in scientific circles, but also in the broader popular culture. The idea rests on the assumption that a sufficiently intelligent alien agent, or a civilization for that matter, after leaving behind secrecy (cf. Ball, 1973; Fogg, 1987), would be able to net, deduce, and respond to the arranged graphics displayed on the plaque. At present, it must be assumed that the topology of space-time where recipients are found is similar to Earth's, and most importantly, all the variables in producing intelligent life-forms must be

<footnote n="5">5. Talking about similar interstellar ventures, Michaud (2007) calls attention to the anthropocentric factor as it may clearly illustrate the dangers of self-interest and "[...] our own cultural assumptions".</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_200.png" /></figure>

FIGURE 1. The apparently “two-dimensional” message impressed and encoded into the plaque of the *Pioneer 10* space probe of 1972 (cf. Sagan, Sagan, and Drake, 1972, p. 883; Gombrich, 1982, pp. 150–151; Davies, 1995, pp. 55–56; Chandler, 2007, p. 176; BBC, 2010; Rosenthal, 2016; Wolfram, 2018), standing for three-dimensional life-forms, artifacts, atomic, planetary and stellar bodies, was first intended to be intercepted by any *scientifically educated* being in Outer Space. An important and inevitable caveat is that the human-depicted images, objects, and gestures are not only mediated by conventions, but meaning is largely *activated* by cultural convention, as noted in Alex Potts (1996, p. 20). For instance, would the male and female human beings stand better represented in their nudity (critics may perceive some evidence for soft-core pornography), or being properly clothed or half-clothed (critics would disagree on the specific kind of apparel [→ lingerie / bathing suit], as it might be ethnically biased or chosen via personal criteria)? Reprinted after Wikipedia (Vectors by Oona Räisänen (Mysid); designed by Carl Sagan and Frank D. Drake; artwork by Linda Salzman Sagan—Vectorized in CorelDRAW from NASA image GPN-2000-001623.)

assumed, which will develop language(s), communication means, and a keen interest for this purpose (cf. D. G. Brin, 1983; deGrasse Tyson, 2006; Smith, 2009; Glaz, 2014, p. 369).

Nonetheless, a small detour warns specialists that meaning in a linguistic structure is not easy to retrieve even for taggers built by gifted
humans. A sense of disambiguation is required in the syntax of certain phonetic-based utterances, e.g., “You might use all your might” or “May may leave now on leave” (Sproat, 2008, p. 34). Likewise, visually speaking, several human-generated image-constructs, e.g., optical illusions or Rorschach inkblot tests<fnref n="6" /> require proper skill, contextualization, relaxation, sobriety, and a fine pair of discerning eyes.

In principle, if meaningful dialogue is sought, the data displayed in Fig. 1 need a priori to be exactly reconstituted by the potential thinking aliens. For all practical purposes, such a reality is far from simple. A number of comments as to the “premature” or the incomplete end of the goal—the transmission of the message pictorially impressed on the plaque of *Pioneer 10* spacecraft and of other memos—are organized below, while referring to Gombrich (1982, pp. 150–151), Chandler (2007, pp. 176–178), Denning (2014), Saint-Gelais (2014), and to the work of social scientists, hard science fiction writers and literary critics,<fnref n="7" /> and film producers. As stated earlier, we should *assume* that the astronomical and biological variables—against all odds—favor the creation of reasonably advanced civilizations<fnref n="8" /> prepared to receive records from Earth and communicate in an educated manner according to *a mutually acceptable channel* (Golomb, 1961, p. 202). Consider however that without *implicit design coordination* between the transmitter and receiver, the reality of an end-to-end digital interstellar communication system at radio frequencies sounds about *impossible* as noted by Messerschmitt and Morrison (2012). Given that candidates for such an enterprise might theoretically emerge, a number of remarks (bearing some healthy skepticism) are presented.

To start with, Golomb (1963)—in a succinct manner—and later, Jonas and Jonas (1976)—in a more elaborate manner—drew in on mixed arguments which could be condensed to the question: “does the ETI share the same sensory apparatus as we do in order to transcribe and process important (and less important) data?” Some intricate connections on the *deep and shallow linguistic structure* of the denomination per Noam Chomsky are omitted. ETI tentatively correlates to any life-form with a mixture of a goal-directed movement (inner and/or outer); the capacity of ratiocination (the ability to process external stimuli / data,

<footnote n="6">6. Human-made *optical illusions* or *Rorschach inkblots* are simply designed to induce an intuitive or eloquent response from their viewers; clearly, they are not intelligent or conscious agents *per se*.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7. For instance, here are worth mentioning Sheila Finch (1986, p. 2), who is among the first science fiction authors, if not the first, to have introduced the term *xenolinguist*, a human expert in extraterrestrial forms of communication, and Adam Glaz’s article (2014) on the inherence of linguistics of the “first contact” in fictional works.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8. The terms imply herein a particular form of ET intelligent life, the one capable of technology and willing to communicate; or in the words of Cabrol (2016, p. 663), “As it stands, SETI does not search for all life or for all intelligent life. It focuses exclusively on technologically advanced life”.</footnote>
and postulate inferences from them, mostly critical to survival and thriving) and largely bound (or not) to a special technology for elaboration and enhancement of those data. On the other hand, for those who have the benefit of doubt, it may be similarly asked: “does ratiocination inevitably or even necessarily eventuate as a communication system?” Granted that complex social structures seek cooperation and expansion in material and/or intellectual terms, we may have to accept the possibility that not all non-terrestrial cultures would be xenophobic and isolationist. A major and obvious caveat is that plausible communication is dependent on the prior knowledge of the involved parties. Establishing links with someone or something we have never run across before presents tough challenges. To yield and to paraphrase a science fiction writer, “Man’s yardstick is limited to the things he knows about, limited by the circle of his own experiences” (Simak, 1951). Essentially correct—although humans seem to have a natural drive to expand their “circle” in search of deeper and further knowledge, which would comprise the “unconventional” area of interaction with aliens, so to speak. Hence, any experienced researcher is inclined to think that no one can safely teach the craft of an instant and effective communication with the *other* (*s*), especially on a cosmic scale. It can be learned only by constantly doing it and by accepting the repeated failures as part of the process: the concern at this juncture is that *failures* could last dozens of years, if not more. In analogy, our ability to “communicate” at some level with domestic animals—dogs, sheep, goats, cattle, horses, cats, and so on—has required centuries and millennia of mutual interactions and the (genetic) modification of the animals involved. Even communicating with our closest “relatives,” the great apes, is no easy nor trivial matter; likewise, understanding great ape gestural communication strategies has required intensive study on the part of humans (Byrne et al., 2017; Fröhlich and Hobaiter, 2018; Tomasello and Call, 2018).<fnref n="9" />

The representational conventions on the above plaque: the physical outfitting of male and female human, the fourteen (14) pulsars of the Milky Way with respect to Sun / Earth, the route-map of our Solar System, the molecular structure of H₂ with its two hydrogen atoms engaged in *hyper-fine transition* (= its two lowest energy states, and related to radio emissions at the wavelength of 21 cm), for all its merit of diagrammatic inception, artistry, and use of binary mathematical language, may reflect anthropocentric bias (cf. Baum, Haqq-Misra, and Domagal-Goldman, 2011; Wolfram, 2018).<fnref n="9" /> Terms, such as “anthropocentrism”

<footnote n="9">⁹. An independent reviewer noted that “the plaque reflects the style of 1970s America”. The original designers of the plaque, Sagan, Sagan, and Drake (1972, p. 881), while acknowledging that “The message inadvertently contains anthropocentric content,” expressed also their hope, “Nevertheless we feel that an advanced technical civilization would be able to decipher it.”</footnote>
and “anthropocentric,” are essentially employed in this article in the context of the *human-centered cognitive and moral abilities / attitudes*, with all *other beings and whole systems mattering* [only] for their instrumental value to humans<fnref n="10" /> (for detailed analyses and various positions, refer to Hayward, 1997; Goralnik and Nelson, 2012; Kopnina, Washington, Taylor, and Piccolo, 2018).

Supposing the message<fnref n="11" /> makes it through space against all detractors’ reasoning and falls in the “hands” of the recipients, the next issue will be *meaning* retrieval. The ETIs will get better estimates of it as long as their biochemistry is / was (quite) similar to the human one and their knowledge of astronomy, physics, chemistry and mathematics are / were substantially close to that of the senders.<fnref n="12" /> With enough practice, the decoding *may* or *can* become transparent but the “aliens,” to be sure, would need far more samples than the single tablet of *Pioneer 10*. However, there cannot really be much done to correct this now, aside from expanding the sampling in future missions. This option is possible, but experts need to mull over the fact that—*for now*—these are one-way shipments. Even if good luck is on humans’ side, given the chances of ET intelligence (see Aldiss, 2006, pp. 33–34, or Webb, 2002) and the literal immensity of space, answers cannot be expected any time soon, and certainly not a successful engagement in a ping pong correspondence (cf. Smith, 2009; Benford, Benford, and Benford, 2010; Shuch, 2011; Vakoch, 2014a; Harbour, 2019; Westby and Conselice, 2020).

An argument as to the validity of the interstellar message construction is to slip back in time and explore real-world human-made symbols, inscriptions, and purported codes. Many scholars have pondered past mysteries and dabbled over the years in archaeological decipherment as well as in cryptanalysis with varied degrees of success (cf. Doblhofer, 1993; Higenbottam, 1973; Pope, 1999; Garrett, 2001; Robinson, 2002; Bauer, 2002). The suggested commonality between the domains of decipherment of ancient scripts / secret codes and that of CETI is not to be viewed as a single, unified approach rather than as *heuristic*, from which some lessons could be learned.

Remember, e.g., some fanciful decipherments of the Cretan *Phaistos Disc* (cf. Fischer, 1997a; Faucounau, 1999; see also Sproat’s critique (2007), and Fig. 2), the *only* known “long” document so far with that sort

<footnote n="10">10. The last statement in *italics* paraphrases the caption of the tag “Anthropocentrism” in Goralnik and Nelson (2012, p. 150, Figure 1).</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11. Described as “... the most enterprising and optimistic diagram ever created” in BBC’s (2010) documentary.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12. See the (relatively) optimistic view of Fogg (1987, p. 378), “Doubtless, communication between alien races may pose translation problems, but these are unlikely to be insoluble. Although evolved in isolated and unique environments, the same constraints will operate for any intelligence when solving problems”.</footnote>
of “printed” (pressed into the clay) signs, apparently encoding speech patterns. A brief comment here: the original human / alien intention to pass on *information* may ironically result en route in *disinformation*.<fnref n="13" />

Finney and Bentley (2014) raise analogous concerns as they quote the case of the decipherment of Maya glyphs and extrapolate within the broad context of interstellar messages,

> If we have been unable to translate ancient human scripts without some knowledge of the spoken language they represent, what prospects [do] we have of being able to comprehend radio transmissions emanating from other worlds for which we have neither ‘Rosetta Stones’ nor any knowledge of the languages they encode? (ibid., p. 75)

Regardless of whether or not the unmanned Pioneer 10 spacecraft (together with its message) will ever be recovered by intelligent recipients, the whole concept has to do with its “... largely ... symbolic significance” (Davies, 1995, p. 56) in the endeavor of interstellar communication (see also Shostak and Barnett, 2003, pp. 87–137; Frank Drake in BBC’s 2010 documentary; Harrison, 2014, pp. 175–176, and Rosenthal, 2016). In a parallel fashion, the apparent disappointment or other concerns related to ETI detection and engagement may still assist humankind “... by enhancing our understanding of how we represent ourselves and how we measure the limits of our self-knowledge” (Denning, 2014, p. 98).

Other graphic examples are found in Fig. 3. As per human standards, the following venture was certainly incepted to let know, and not to entertain nor baffle the ET end-users. The saying “A picture [= image] is worth a thousand words” is truly enlightening, and we admit it is adequate for healthy and knowledgeable humans; but not for the eyes of a giant anteater, a mule, or for a roster of creatures as nearly alien as them.

We would do well to point out that the potential interceptors may have a rough time in interpreting the pictures and numbers of Fig. 3, despite the fact that, as to corpus’ criteria, the multiple and enticing nature of the package of 1977 does better than the former *Pioneer 10* plaque (cf. Heidmann, 1993; Harrison, 2014, p. 176). Specifically, Richard Saint-Gelais (2014, p. 93) highlights the importance of the “... number and the variety of messages” sent, which “... will give the recipients more opportunities to compare and test their abductions ...”

<footnote n="13">13. Before we get too “excited” about the communication with ETIs, consider that cultural gaffes / misunderstandings are a possibility (at all times); suffice to remember various scenarios in human-to-human interaction(s). The observation is important and, e.g., it comes consequentially to the point when one reads Eric Frank Russell’s (1905–1978) story *Allamagoosa* (1955) about data fudging and human failed communication in Outer Space. *Allamagoosa* (a British lexical coinage) stands in the informal US speech for *whatchamacallit* or *thingamajig*.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_201.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2. Side B of the so-called *Phaistos Disc* (Wikipedia), a document that is extremely short in texts “written” in similar signs. Given its present status, serious scholarship heavily doubts that it will ever be deciphered (cf. Sproat, 2007). Hypothetically speaking, if ETIs delivered us a moderately short ping, encoded in *Phaistos Disc*'s symbols in order to communicate, it would potentially bring us to a standstill, although it might at least demonstrate that the ETIs are “out there”.</figcaption></figure>

However, skeptics might claim that matters are quite complex in terms of elucidation. For instance, although ETIs may stumble across the “Golden Record” and have proper record-playing machines at home, they would have to discern for themselves the meaning of the accompanying indicators, such as “cm” and “y,” plus the binary sex symbols: “♂” = human male and “♀” = human female. Similarly, whilst deeming the satirical mood of the UK-based anonymous street artist who goes by the name of Banksy (Fig. 4), a few scholars may speculate whether ETIs would have had it easier (or harder) in explaining the image of Fig. 4 when compared with that of Fig. 3b. What becomes clear is that notwithstanding Earth’s aspiration for communication, not only isolated human-conceived graphics may result in futile attempts but also arrays of other messages, if contextualization and the attending logical chain are wrong. The supermarket shopping carts on behalf
<figure><img src="image_202.png" /></figure>

FIGURE 3. These silhouetted images are part of the package (= "Golden Record," a phonograph record in a 12-inch gold-plated copper disk) of the *Voyager* space probes 1 and 2 of 1977, including diagrams, pictures and sounds from Earth (Evamy, 2003, pp. 60–61; cf. Shostak and Barnett, 2003, p. 89; Wolfram, 2018; https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/golden-record).

of wild animals may add at first a harmless little laugh but they still convey the intended irony of the artist to his informed peers. Since “aliens,” we assume, will be ignorant of human pre-history, history, modus operandi, local handicrafts, and sense of whimsy, the disjointed and non-interactive data—whether encoding real-life subjects and activities or out-of-place / out-of-time absurd situations—can cripple in advance any interstellar experiment. Vakoch (2000) similarly emphasized that there is no ease at all in interpreting outgoing pictorial messages for extraterrestrial intelligences.

There is a gap of over three decades between *Pioneer 10* space capsule of 1972 / *Voyager* space probes of 1977 and “A Message from Earth,” emitted in 2008 from the radar telescope at Evpatoria, Ukraine (Atri, DeMarines, and Haqq-Misra, 2011; Harrison, 2014, p. 181, cf. Zaitsev, 2008a; for prior dispatched transmissions from Evpatoria Planetary Radar [= EPR]; cf. Grinspoon, 2007, and Harrison, 2014, pp. 178–180). Leaving aside the useful debate of whether EPR-messages are technically detectable (or not) by ETIs (Billingham and Benford, 2011), and the redundancy factor (earlier mentioned as *corpus criteria*), the present concern is the quality and cultural neutrality of its contents. Despite the insights collected during the last three decades, the 501 personal letters, photographs, and drawings selected to be transmitted in a digital time capsule, again confirm anthropocentric bias. Thus, instead of being stripped of undue human effusion by enhancing the mixed scientific-symbolic languages, it is held that one actress submitted pictures of opposing political candidates, one to epitomize *good* and the other *evil*
<figure><img src="image_203.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 4. *Trolley Hunters*, screen-print by street artist Banksy (2007; see Artificial Gallery, 2006-2010). MAB's (2020) evaluation is, “A biting satire on the inability of modern man to provide for himself ... It depicts three cavemen bearing primitive [= prehistoric; *our note*] weapons and crouched in the act of hunting a herd of supermarket trolleys”. And we might add that the trolleys are empty of food.</figcaption></figure>

(Harrison, 2014, p. 181). It may be questioned *how feasible* it would be for complex organisms endowed with intelligence (best-case scenario) or microbial life-forms (worst-case scenario) to comprehend the concepts of “good” and “evil” if a high resolution picture or a video-clip of a king cobra (*Ophiophagus hannah*) and an Indian grey mongoose (*Herpestes edwardsi*) during a fortuitous duel had been included. As a matter of fact, while a mongoose might see a chance for food within the scenario, a cobra exercises the right to self-preservation (see National Geographic, 2010). “Good” vs. “evil” are formal constructions embedded in the moral values of *humanity* (cf., e.g., Goralnik and Nelson, 2012, p. 145), a species very alien both to wild mongooses and king cobras. Some scholars may justifiably wonder what the real aliens (ETIs, for instance) might make of the antagonizing pairs, be those politicians or animal life-forms. On top of that, 21st century Earth scientists are still far away from the achievements of the *Foundation's* scholar Harri Seldon and followers who used mathematical models for predicting the future behavior of very large groups and the future of history itself, as narrated in the saga of Asimov (1988). If history could be laid in mathematical terms, so could other notions related to morality and raw sentiments.

A complementary source at this point, both in terms of negative or positive outcomes, is Hofstadter in the subsection “Levels of Understanding of a Message”,
Here is where things become very unclear. Will beings of an alien civi-
lization have emotions? will their emotions—supposing they have some—be
mappable, in any sense, onto ours? If they do have emotions somewhat like
ours, do the emotions cluster together in somewhat the same way as ours do?
Will they understand such amalgams as tragic beauty or courageous suffer-
ing? If it turns out that beings throughout the universe do share cognitive
structures with us to the extent that even emotions overlap, then in some
sense, the record [= the message sent; *our note*] can never be out of its nat-
ural context; that context is part of the scheme of things, in nature. And if
such is the case, then it is likely that a meandering record, if not destroyed en
route, would eventually get picked up by a being or group of beings, and get
deciphered in a way which we would consider successful. (Hofstadter, 1999,
p. 163)

In defense to critical voices, it may be alleged: since other supposedly
intelligent beings on Earth, such as dolphins, whales, octopuses, crows,
chimpanzees, or orangutans<fnref n="14" /> are not keen on building radio-telescopes
and space probes, then, the task is left to the *Homo sapiens* breed with all
his current baggage of knowledge, preferences, and whims.<fnref n="15" /> Further-
more, if most technological civilizations adopt the stance that *listening* is
way better than *transmitting* for a bevy of motives, then it is hard indeed
to consider a practical interstellar communicating.

However complicated or nearly-impossible the task may be, the
message compilers are required in the end to reduce "anthropocen-
trism" and strike a balance with self-interpreting symbolically- and
mathematically-inclined signs, where systematic interplay of repetition
and variation between them will give recipients opportunities to make a
series of correct conjectures (see Saint-Gelais, 2014, pp. 91-92). At this
point, the *Sónar Calling Project* rises to the occasion: during three days in
mid-October 2017, several messages were sent from Tromsø (Norway) to
the exoplanet GJ273b, located about 12.4 ly away and orbiting Luyten's
star (Vakoch, Matessa, DeVito, and Kaiser, 2018). A tutorial-sent in bi-
nary code at two frequencies, 929.0 MHz and 930.2 MHz-made use of a
minimal number of key mathematical concepts to introduce fundamen-
tal physical concepts like time, frequency, and wavelength.<fnref n="16" /> Emulat-
ing and improving on previous experiments (e.g., *Golden Record; Across the
Universe message*;<fnref n="17" /> *A Message from Earth*), the tutorial comprised also in-

<footnote n="14">14. Cf. Chick (2014, pp. 211–212), or Herzing (2014).</footnote>

<footnote n="15">15. Cf. also Chick (2014, p. 225, footnote 61), Bains and Schulze-Makuch (2016, pp. 17–18) and Cabrol (2016, p. 662); see, however, Raup’s (1992, pp. 258–259) exposé on non-conscious alien organisms “who” may have the capability to emit and receive radio (or radar-like) dispatches.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16. In the words of Vakoch, Matessa, DeVito, and Kaiser (2018), “For example, after introducing numbers, basic arithmetic functions, and Pythagorean triples, we describe sine waves through the ratios of sides of a right triangle”.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17. The message consisted of the song "Across the Universe" by the Beatles transmitted from Robledo de Chavela, near Madrid (Spain) on February 4, 2008 by NASA</footnote>
novative features such as a “cosmic clock” to assist extraterrestrials in confirming that their understanding of time from the incoming scientific message maps onto the passage of time they can observe throughout the transmission itself (ibid.). During nearly eight months (October 2017-May 2018), METI International, in collaboration with the Catalonia Institute of Space Studies and Sónar Festival (Barcelona), engaged thirty-five Sónar festival associated musicians (plus three pieces chosen from public submissions) to beam short musical pieces to the exoplanet GJ273b from Tromsø (Norway). The design of the messages had an in-built propaedeutic¹⁸ protocol (= tutorials or progressing explanations of their creative processes). In a parallel fashion, in order to understand Earth's ecosystems, one participant compressed digital audio files and juxtaposed a key to their decoding and reversal of data compression (see https://www.sonarcalling.com). The idea of self-teaching tutorials is by all means a strong plus-point; the position of the planet itself is another advantage as it may “heal” somehow the rift of the astronomical distances (i.e., the smallest interaction sender $\leftrightarrow$ recipient may take here only 25ly).¹⁹ On the other hand, the major unknowns in this equation would be: (1) *the presence of intelligent beings living in a favorable bio-habitat*, and (2) *equivalence*, both in terms of their anatomical / neurological systems, and of their receiving antennae and sonic technology (= D/A converters, amplifiers, speakers, etc.). IF (a big one) there is intelligent life on GJ273b whose bio- or synthetic sensors are capable of sweeping correctly the message/s, and IF the extant alien technologies meet “symmetrically” the demands of the “Sónar Calling Project,” then, there is a chance the Sónar human messengers did not take a leap in the dark. Yet, if these two isomorphic conditions are not given in the case of planet GJ273b, we have to commend their ingenuity, optimism, and earnest passion in devising the “Sonar Calling Project”—*something of a consolation prize*,²⁰ nonetheless.

in the direction of the star Polaris (the *alpha* star in the constellation of *Ursa Minor*), located about 430 ly away from Earth (cf. Zaitsev, 2008b, pp. 1111–1112).

18. From the Greek language, *teaching beforehand*.

19. While mulling over “alien communication” and a shareable “language,” Wolfram (2018) suggests, “And in a sense just as we might say that we’re only going to consider aliens who live within a certain number of light years of us, so also we may have to say that we’ll only consider aliens where the language defining their cultural context is within a certain ‘translation distance’ of ours”; see, however, Westby and Conselice (2020, p. 16) who estimate that “communicating civilizations in the Galaxy today... would be at a maximum distance given by $17,000^{+10,000}_{-33,600}$ *lt-yr* [= *light years*], making communication or even detection of these systems nearly impossible with present technology”.

20. The terms are from Denning (2014, p. 101).
## 4. Discussion

Since researchers and other concerned groups are sending (or planning to send) improved wording coded after natural and artificial languages, signals, and plain pictures or holograms that (may) contain exposed or half-exposed humans—probably in order to transmit their life-like physiological characteristics—, in the next delivery, it may be tentatively suggested that a picture of a real-life human pair (→ sexually dimorphic) standing on an undisclosed beach be included.

Fair enough... yet, more than one person is tempted to inquire: "what are the chances of "decipherment" by the aliens of the message that encodes the human couple?" For a start, do they stand for a broad category such as "man" and "woman," or do they specifically represent the particular tandem that enjoys meditation and sun-tanning (cf. Chandler, 2007, p. 45), i.e., are they an *icon* or a *symbol* (cf. Vakoch, 1998)? Are they going to be considered copy-cats of their senders: everyone on Earth has by default the same physical characteristics? Would aliens also deem the possibility that the senders invariably *hop around* in a pair-wise or in a symbiotic fashion? Most assuredly, the ETIs are not familiar with the nature of the described phenomenon (that lying on a beach and getting sun-tanned more often than not causes relaxation among humans, especially among those coming from frost-bitten lands); neither are they aware of René Magritte's painting *La Trahison des images* [The Treachery of Images], the affixed text *Ceci n'est pas une pipe* and its connotations (Chandler, 2007, pp. 69–70).

They are likely unaware as well of the habit of wearing bathing suits or of the naturists' cheerful practices of a segment of the human population. To the mind/s of those who decided to include the couple's picture, those are eventually two attractive, thoughtful, and half-dressed young people enjoying a sunbath on unnamed seashores. Yet, to the mind/s of the contacted aliens (presuming somehow that they are *not* post-biological entities), the graphic information will be entirely vague and incoherent. If we exclude somehow details on the human way of life, social organization, genome, morale, technology, communicative systems, etc., apart from astronomical, geological, biological data of our planet,<fnref n="21" /> the ETIs would *not* be left any wiser regarding the symbolic

<footnote n="21">21. See especially Heidmann (1993), who advocated for sending the entire *British Encyclopedia*, a huge buffet of scientific and cultural offerings from Earth. One perceived problem is that humanity speaks a multitude of languages, with the "English Only" probably conveying a skewed picture of the reality of human societies; cf. also Harbour's (2019) opinion, "Encyclopedias vary so widely between countries that no current one could command universal consent—though maybe we could lessen this problem sufficiently by sending abridged encyclopedias in, say, Arabic, Chinese, English, and Hindi, possibly with smaller documents in less widely spoken languages from elsewhere, such as Cherokee and Fijian".</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_204.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 5. The painting *La Trahison des images* [The Treachery of Images] by René Magritte (1898–1967), on display at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, is reprinted after https://publicdelivery.org/magritte-not-a-pipe/. The main goal of human languages is to code and decode meaning and establish communication. In a smart and arbitrary interplay, however, the words (= the written French caption, "This is not a pipe.") betray the represented object, complicating the meaning implied by the author (see in a similar context, Foucault, 1983, pp. 20–22; Vakoch, 1998; Saint-Gelais, 2014, pp. 85–86).</figcaption></figure>

couple and any subtlety around them. Then again, if copious and adequate data are provided and by a clever twist of fate they are decoded, the results may be utilized for malicious ambitions or a possible raid in the not-too-distant future.<fnref n="22" /> Some of the informed aliens won't be out there to spread enlightenment or "to save us from our own follies" (Aldiss, 2006, p. 35). In fact, it may be seriously doubted that aliens—once their target is acquired and settled—will show any sense of wonder and awe as to the tandem, as some people on Earth would... ergo, in the ETIs' scheme, as if in a renewed pirate episode, Earth might after all be

<footnote n="22">22. See, e.g., Raybeck (2014, p. 143) who refers to possible “untoward motives” of the ETIs, or Gertz (2016, p. 1), who considers METI-like programs as “unwise... and potentially catastrophic...” since they may lure would-be predatory and dangerous aliens.</footnote>
a cache to be graciously or rudely exploited, e.g., for servitude, for ultra-
rare minerals, for gene harvesting, or in sexual terms. With this hoopla
started, they must be taught not only to handle the spotlight well but
also how to practice safe sex. Alien viruses or bacteria—incompatible
with normal human DNA—probably won't harm Earths' inhabitants but
some compatible or freshly engineered alien pathogens may be more an-
noying and lethal than those already existing on our planet. The point
becomes relevant when the “*historic transfer of* [contagious] *diseases to the
Americas*” during the *first contact* and *post-first contact* situations with natives
by Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and English explorers/settlers is consid-
ered (see H. F. Dobyns, 1993). Similarly, there could be far worse scenar-
ios where malevolent ETIs could insidiously promote total anarchy and
tear apart every inch of the fabric of human society. Notwithstanding
current paranoia and sensitivity in equal dosages, the probability of such
a perspective should not be neglected by professionals (cf. Tarter, 2000,
p. 727; D. G. Brin, 2006; Baum, Haqq-Misra, and Domagal-Goldman,
2011; Musso, 2012; Gertz, 2016).

*Bottom-line:* this is not a funny story nor banal commentaries, but
rather a reflection on the impact and repercussions that Earth-bound
visual and other-than-visual messages may cause in an *interstellar contact*,
and later in the pursued *exchange protocol*. Earth languages and symbol-
ics have demonstrated on many occasions to be a source of misunderstand-
ing among human individuals. Correspondingly, the *first contact* be-
tween human cultures themselves was introduced and followed in the
past by military confrontations, skirmishes, and other more-than-dis-
agreeable effects. Many indigenous ethnicities in what are known to-
day as the Americas, Africa, and Oceania, suffered not simply a *cultural
shock* but rather an *existential* one when they interacted with the then-
Europeans' abusive ways—apparent remorse, positive and gentlemanly
dealings, and evaluations took place later or much later (Golomb, 1963,
p. 17; Dick, 1996; Harrison, 2011, pp. 72–73; cf. also Michael, 2014 [2011],
for pros and cons regarding the post-first contact perspective).

Despite the improvement of technology and a multi-disciplinary ap-
proach, thorough changes are hardly expected in the interstellar messag-
ing in the next years. What makes part of scholarship think those ETIs,
however *scientifically respectable* they might be (Cohen and Stewart, 2002,
p. 4), should be omniscient and get straight the meaning of any Earth-
related posting? As it turns out, wishful thinking is not enough along
this task of astronomic proportions. Cool scientific reality demands ev-
idence. What SETI-like programs have so far are at best, *sheer statistics on
biogenesis*; a *semiotic theory* formulated by humans (which fails to win unan-
imous support among the humans themselves); a *range of ground- and space-
based suitable optical* and *radio-telescopes*; the discovery of thousands of *exo-
planets* (circling low-mass M dwarfs and solar-type stars such as our Sun)
with different probabilities of sustaining life as we know it; a number of
hard science fiction books about the radical otherness of “aliens”; and the heuristic guidance of *Drake’s Equation* on the existence of intelligence beyond Earth whose deliberate radio messages are detectable (cf. D. G. Brin, 1983; Dick, 1996; Clark, 2000; deGrasse Tyson, 2006; Cohen and Stewart, 2002, pp. 116–144; Watts, 2006; Shuch, 2011; Gomel, 2014; Cabrol, 2016; Schoch, 2017; https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/; Kipping, 2020; Westby and Conselice, 2020).

The liberty is taken at this time to expand a little more on the subject of Fig. 3, by the same token of Gombrich’s (1982) remarks on *Pioneer 10*. A number of premises directly related to the discussion are the default set at this juncture. *First*, it is anticipated that Earth is not an orphan planet. In the vastness of known space,<fnref n="23" /> thinking that other planets do not exist (indeed, thousands have been identified)<fnref n="24" /> or that properties of life are unreal proves utterly wrong (cf. Clark, 2000; Bertka, 2009). Any Earth chauvinism is liable to end in the same way as the postulations *Earth is flat* or *Earth is the center of the universe*. If such overstatements are played time and again, the British master of comic fantasy, Terry Pratchett, might rise from the after-life and write a new, droll book on the topic. The astrophysicist deGrasse Tyson (2006, p. 16), whilst standing up for compelling arguments that *we are not alone*, similarly points out, “To declare that Earth must be the only planet in the universe with life would be inexcusably egocentric of us”. *Second*, consider that the cosmos is not human- or communicative-friendly in itself. Beamed signals (of every stripe), automated probes, and/or human beings may degrade there due to various—predictable or unpredictable—factors, as they regularly pass away here on Earth, or as domestic signals corrupt or fade out, again due to several factors. *Third*, it may be assumed that the potential intelligences are multi-cellular (or the extraterrestrial equivalent of multicellular)<fnref n="25" /> and engaged in complex, technologically-driven structures and not equivalent to single-celled organisms on Earth. Bigger brainpower requiring physical support from more-than-a-single cell equivalent body appears necessary to process intelligence, at least at a complex level; cf. Bains and Schulze-Makuch (2016). Granted that complex social structures seek cooperation and expansion in material and/or intellec-

<footnote n="23">23. Max Tegmark (2003, p. 41) comments that the vastness of known space stretches to “about $4 \times 10^{26}$ meters away—a distance that defines our observable universe...”. However, this question cannot be set at rest since “...the observable universe grows by a light-year every year as light from farther away has time to reach us” (ibid.).</footnote>

<footnote n="24">24. NASA (https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/) reports more than 4,150 confirmed exoplanets. As recently as April 2020, Vanderburg et al. (2020) rescued from the false positive status another exoplanet.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">25. If not so, at the moment of contact humans would require potent magnifying lenses or other instruments, unless aliens socialize in the form of hive-like colonies, a preferred theme as various science fiction works have divulged.</footnote>
tual terms, we have to accept the possibility that not all non-terrestrial
cultures would be xenophobic and/or isolationist. *Fourth*, it is uncer-
tain if the ETIs, in any possible habitat, with a different biochemical
metabolism than ours, would find more accessible the included pictures
about human reproduction or human predation habits, than, e.g., a mes-
sage composed in the long-gone Cretan “hieroglyphs” (see Fig. 6), the
paradigmatic phrase coined by H. P. Lovecraft (1999, p. 150), “Ph’nglui
mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn” [In his house at R’lyeh
dead Cthulhu waits dreaming], or Pythagoras’s equation (see Fig. 7).
We see no objection to believing that, given these examples, it is not
known which would be “weirder” to them, if not perfectly pointless. Per-
haps they might have a way of getting along with the *Cthulhu* tongue,
virtually unpronounceable to many living humans. Just based on these
Voyager-related pictorial samples (Evamy, 2003, pp. 60–61), it would
be an astonishing coincidence or a sheer feat, if the printed informa-
tion was retrieved and correctly interpreted by brute intellectual force.
In a similar manner, it should be considered that the *addressees* do not
think the Earthmen are purposely deceiving or attacking them by send-
ing messages of this quality. *Fifth*, there might be a particular scenario
which cannot be ruled out. If the message is intercepted by a civilization
located at the range, say, of 1,200 light years (= ly) away,<fnref n="26" /> and an af-
firmative answer is released, at the time it reaches Earth, some things
may have changed. *Why*? Excluding the problem of interpreting ET
language/s or symbols, humans will face a home-grown one: the uses
and meanings of symbols are not consistent across cultural and time
boundaries. Signs may shift in mode over time due, e.g., to further
stimuli from the natural environment, technological obsolescence, or
from socio-political pressures (cf. Chandler, 2007, p. 45; Fontana, 2003,
p. 27). A general pattern is noticed in a given social context: as a culture
increases in longevity, there is a tendency to regard the beliefs of pre-
vious generations as being *archaic* or *superstitious*. Their symbols are ra-
tionalized and sanitized, interpreted literally or simply abandoned alto-
gether by the next cultural elite. Deprived of their context, such symbols
diminish in power and have to be rediscovered afresh (Fontana, 2003,
p. 28). To sum up, when ETIs’ response is ferried back, portions of the
cultural message of a *Pioneer 10*-like space probe may need a decipher-
ment by our descendants after some 2,400 years in order to proceed with
the exchange. The area of lexicology offers dozens of examples in like

<footnote n="26">26. In this sense, we should not be oblivious to the fact that part of the METI com-
munity is (recently) prioritizing the close stellar neighborhood in order to reduce the
time of information-exchange; cf. the messaging projects concerning potentially hab-
itable planets around dwarf star TRAPPIST-1, located thirty nine (39) ly away from
Earth (in the constellation Aquarius), see Gillon, Triaud, and Queloz (2017), and the
case of the exoplanet GJ372b, circling Luyten's star, at 12.4 ly away from Earth, see
Vakoch, Matessa, DeVito, and Kaiser (2018).</footnote>
manner, though quoting two would suffice: *flabellum* would not be un-
derstandable to many modern humans, without consulting a fine, thick
dictionary, or a real specialist in the celebration of the Eucharist (a *fla-
bellum* it is a type of fan used practically to drive away insects, and also
has honorific connotations); *dolium* would sound equally unclear given
the limits of year 2020 CE. Going back further in time, we learn (that)
*dolium* was a Roman earthenware jar for wine, oil, etc. In either case,
the terms are not immediately evident on casual reading. Their past or
ancient context has dissipated, or may be lost if not refreshed or care-
fully investigated. Imagine, then, the difficulty in having to carry out
a double decipherment: that of the note from the off-world and of our
own message. We are at the mercy of probabilistic variables, with no
guarantee for a successful solution.

Sixth, by stating all the above, we must consider the theorists' side
that endorses poor chances or the utter improbability of communication
due to the uncommonness of shared evolutionary traits and/or tech-
nologies. It is awkward to perceive matters in absolute terms, as it is
awkward to unilaterally perceive them. While agreed that this might be
inevitable in certain cases, on the other side, there should be circum-
stances where joint channels of interaction can be found. The alleged
"ETIs" either may be in a bacterial stage (the probability is *very high*; cf.
Crawford, 1996), or sporadically in a pre-industrial stage, or even in an
industrial or a post-industrial stage. What is feared is that they could
belong to an advanced Kardashev *type II* or *III* civilization (cf. Michaud,
2007, p. 36; Wright, Mullan, Sigurðsson, and Povich, 2014, pp. 13–14;
Ćirković, 2015), let alone a disturbingly hyper-advanced *type IV* or *V*.
We are told that such eventual super-technological civilizations, once
they go beyond the self-destruction phase,<fnref n="27" /> are dedicated to harness
the whole power of a star (→ Type II), of a massive black hole, a galaxy
(→ Type III), a string of galaxies, or even of an entire universe (→ Type
IV).<fnref n="28" /> In weight of numbers, theoretical considerations here go beyond
figures of thirty-forty zeroes, if not approaching a googol (or a googol-
plex). The outlook is daunting and by any present estimate it beats a hu-
man understanding. The human motives to communicate perhaps may
not really mean much to that civilization (as some aerobic or anaerobic
germs may not mean much here on Earth), or vice versa, humans are
not going to be able to understand, (or worse) imagine the motives and
variables concerning their culture or the universe *en bloc* (see also Ball,
1973).

<footnote n="27">27. Cf., e.g., Crawford (1996); Westby and Conselice (2020, p. 15).</footnote>

<footnote n="28">28. “Type V” is an extremely speculative proposition concerning a *civilization* or *entity* capable of manipulating and harnessing the energy of the multiverse (= the whole known universes).</footnote>
Is there the possibility of finding “out there” what is already avail-
able on Earth? The average alien, comparable to the Earth-based intel-
ligence, “not too dumb and not too smart” (Gardner, 2007, p. 102), with
whom scientists have good odds to interact and benefit, may simply *not*
exist. It is unlikely that circumstances have been flawlessly “cooked up”
to give rise to the sought-for symmetrical intelligence (cf. Musso, 2012,
p. 49, for a differing opinion). Yet, in the absence of hard facts, since
anything can turn out to be equiprobable, the speculation should be very
cautious like in a long *trial-and-error* exercise, where the perceived error
should be analyzed and decreased whenever *possible*.

<figure><img src="image_205.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 6. (a) Segment of Cretan “hieroglyphs” carved in a steatite seal, inventoryed as ♦294 [3] CR S (4/4) 01 β (Olivier, Godart, and Poursat, 1996, pp. 276–277); (b) the bottom drawing replicates the glyphs, accompanied by nomenclature index numbers</figcaption></figure>

4.1. Further Examples of Designed Communication

Similar concerns to those in Section 3 are correctly paralleled in Shostak
and Barnett (2003, p. 153). In an image (ibid., p. 153) intended to convey
a three-dimensional (= 3D) environment, a "blue" human being is hold-
ing in her/his arms another "red" one. Quibbles aside, we note (a) that
<figure><img src="image_206.png" /></figure>

FIGURE 7. Pythagoras's theorem $a^2 + b^2 = c^2$, is well-known for its elegance and simplicity in the mathematical world. Several theorists may think that the formula has a universal application in other bio- and ecosystems of the cosmos. Aldhouse-Green (2004, p. 2) states, "Images contain conceptual messages that may be accepted, negotiated, challenged or denied," which, very aptly, may fit the interstellar negotiations. While this particular case $a^2 + b^2 = c^2$ is viable for intellectual organisms used to the tradition of Earth mathematics and geometric figures, it may not apply to, e.g., intelligences living (or self-exiled) in magnetic fields, who may lack for that matter the Euclidean concepts of linearity or angularity (see, in a broader context, Rescher, 1985; Denning, 2014, pp. 107–108; and Dunér, 2017, pp. 436–437).

a backdrop rectangular grid<sup>29</sup> is chosen on account of a standard human projection of 3D sketches, the idea behind the picture is to show *altruism*—again in keeping with human standards; (b) that these particular body positions are chosen among a myriad of conceivable positions (cf., e.g., Hewes, 1957, on “steady postures”); (c) in the same way, Fernsler (2010, p. 25) in commenting on various factors related to *nonverbal communication* (after Kinsey Goman’s book, 2008) highlights *Culture* as a decisive one,

Not only can gestures mean conflicting things in different cultures but people from various regions of the same country may have quite different body language: Just consider the contrast between the fastpaced, quick-talking New Yorker and the Southerner.

Now, attempting to bridge the cultural, gestural, and linguistic gap among different species is commendable; achieving the goal is another

<footnote n="29">29. Consider, for a moment, that a few Earth-based “aliens,” such as honey bees (*Apis melifera*) or common wasps (*Vespa vulgaris*), are hard-wired to make hexagonal structures in their hives.</footnote>
matter (cf. Harrison and Elms, 1990; Michaud, 2007). Even if the aliens recognize the message as an intended platform for communication and its physical dimensions, altruism *may be* (or *not*) a noble, traditional norm among them (cf. Vakoch's compilation, 2014b, and Gertz, 2016, for a number of arguments and counter-arguments). Vakoch (2011a) likewise offers a series of pictorial displays which express altruism and reciprocity; cf. Harrison (2011, p. 70). In turn, Cohen and Stewart (2002, p. 300) suggest that *empathy is heavily influenced by culture*, and so could be *altruism* as a synonym to unselfishness. Selfish urges, by analogy, may (or not) prevail among ETIs as a behavioral pattern, though these urges have perhaps a better chance to be (very) active (cf. Brin, 2011), as they may be tied to a universal self-preservation measure / instinct.<fnref n="30" /> This will be positively known from empirical observations, which for the moment (year 2020 CE) are wanting.

Stanley Schmidt (1995, pp. 175–176) has an interesting instance from a slightly different context: endeavoring communication with non-human aquatic mammals, dolphins. In his novelette *Pinocchio*, we find tabulated a number of verbal expressions, transcribing the dialogue between the dolphin and researcher.

<table><tr><td>GOOD MORNING, MASON.</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>FRIENDLINESS.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>MODERATE CHEERFULNESS.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>* IS THIS SANDY?</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>CURIOSITY.</td></tr><tr><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>EAGERNESS.</td></tr><tr><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>SONAR.</td></tr></table>

Unconventional as it is, to say the least, it is not quite clear even after the second glimpse. Schmidt offers assistance in this respect: the first two columns of the (computer) display give a very free verbal translation of what he is saying, or both messages if the said things are at once. Some of the sounds carry connotations to compensate for the lack of an expressive face and the third column has the comments on those.

Evidently, *Pinocchio* (= the target dolphin) has earned the right to “speak” his mind; nonetheless, the conversation between dolphins and

<footnote n="30">30. While theorizing on the appearance of intelligence in potential non-terrestrial habitats, Kukla (2001, p. 41), insinuates indirectly that *altruism* may not be the most noble value among the candidates, “Alternatively, there might be something about evolutionary processes generally that militates against the appearance of more than one intelligent species per planet. (Perhaps intelligence is inevitably accompanied by a xenophobia so intense that the first intelligent species to appear exterminates all the near-intelligent competitors)”.</footnote>
the upstanding researcher/s is not unproblematic. The transcription is amusing once or twice, but if constantly rendered, patience may run out, angst increases, and with it an entropy-dominated model is likely to happen. At this instant, none is to be blamed: the closest thing (we) humans have to communicating like *Pinocchio* would be *nostrils*, functioning single-handedly, in unison, intermittently, or in a shuffled mode. Excluding the nasal sounds, we may not be able to distinctly articulate through the projecting part of the face even a simple phrase such as “Give me a cookie”. It is an established fact that *human mammals* have a different anatomy as they have vocal chords, while *dolphin mammals* have nasal air-sacks near the blowhole and they are waterborne creatures. Despite several pesky facts getting in the way of trans-species communication, the basic human desire to fathom other realities, beings, and dimensions cannot be said to be preventable (v. *supra*).

Then... there are people of a different linguistic and social background whose connecting with each other appears next to an *impossible mission*; or if somehow it is accomplished, it touches the realm of absurdity and hilarity (refer below to an excerpt from John Irving's book, 1994, p. 250). It is perhaps no surprise that there are cases of Earth men who have never learned how to talk to women, or Earth women who cannot make (to one extent or another) a rational dialogue with their mother-in-laws. The statement is not meant as a gentle or harsh reproof here; although it echoes fairly well the opening sentence of Saint-Gelais' (2014) essay, "Communication, as we all know, is a touchy business between human beings". Consider in this vein that man-to-man, man-to-woman, and woman-to-woman interactions are—for all their idiosyncrasies, gender, and cultural differences—of the same species, while engaging dolphins is altogether an inter-species model. M. Schetsche (2005) correctly observes,

> Mutual understanding between cultural strangers on Earth is based on anthropocentric constants, which enable us to insinuate that the opposite person has similar physical needs, sensory possibilities, modes of perceiving the world, motivations, etc.

When the scenario is extrapolated to electromagnetic radiation exchanges or to direct contact with ETIs, several scholars begin to approach or realize the strain and imposing complexity of the situation, where human pre-assumptions and stereotypes about the “others” are intrinsically bound.

Outside a *kaffeehaus* on *Plankengasse*, a man spoke to him. ‘Grajak ok bretzet’, he seemed to say, and Trumper paused, trying to place this queer language ‘Bretzet, jak?’ the man said and Trumper thought, Czech? Hungarian? Serbo-Croatian? ‘Gra! Nucemo Paz!’ the man shouted. He was angry about something and waved his fist at Trumper.
Bogus [= Trumper; *our note*] asked, 'Ut boethra rast, kelk?' Old Low Norse never hurt a soul.

'Gra?' the man said suspiciously. 'Grajak, ok,' he added with more confidence. Then he shouted eagerly, 'Nucemo paz tzet!'

Bogus was sorry he didn't understand, and began to say in Old Low Norse: 'Ijs kik...'

'Kik?' the man interrupted, smiling at Bogus. 'Gra, gra, gra! Kik!' he cried, trying to shake Trumper's hand.

'Gra, gra, gra!' replied Bogus, and shook hands with the man who weaved and mumbled 'Gra, gra'. Nodding with greater conviction than before he tumbled away and stumbled off the kerb, veering across the street stooped over; like a blind man groping for the opposite sidewalk, he aimed his feet and protected his crotch with his hands. (Irving, 1994, p. 250)

A different—or, better, an inverse approach is taken by René Heller (2017). After simulating the receipt of an alien message, the researcher challenged in English via two social networks anyone who could decode it. It should parenthetically be inserted that the author presumed that the altruistic aliens (from a star about 50 ly from Earth) had great scientific abilities and similar logistic resources for the dispatch in question. Consider, however, that the real-life experts might not all and always agree on how best to measure the conditions for sending (or receiving) effectively a transmission that spans across fifty light years.<fnref n="31" />

The message was devised of around 2 million binary digits and comprised a representation of the non-terrestrial being, the first 757 prime numbers (serving as a clue for its decoding) and other concise data related suggestively to the aliens' world, planetary system, and physiology. By using some fundamental natural constants, e.g., *the speed of light*, *the gravitational constant* (= the big G), and *the Planck constant*, the author followed a common trend among many SETI researchers in finding an optimal coding method, independent of human-conceived units (in this sense, see also Denning, 2014, pp. 105–108, for interesting counterarguments).<fnref n="32" /> After filtering out misinterpretations and errors (over 300),

<footnote n="31">31. Translated into kilometers the selected distance would be *ca.* 473,040,000,000,000 (= *ca.* four hundred seventy-three trillion forty billion kilometers). If the conception and processing of this digit is somewhat difficult for a normal human brain, we have to contend with celestial bodies that surpass the range 1,000 ly, or more. Such digits, e.g., the 1,000 ly span converted to kilometers, *ca.* 473,040,000,000,000 × 20 = 9,460,800,000,000,000, i.e., *ca.* nine quadrillion four hundred sixty trillion, eight hundred billion kilometers, would probably sound as clear as mud to many of the Earth's inhabitants. Human experts, however, will attach to these astronomical distances, a sense of awe and technological impossibility for the time being.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">32. In the light of the mathematical-based concepts embraced (essentially) by astrophysicists, and intended as some “virtual bilingual” in messaging projects, we think Denning (2014) is justified in posing like-minded questions: is the “language of math”</footnote>
sixty-six submissions (including 71 individuals) were found to be accurate. Since the test was originally devised by a human (cf. Heller, 2017), it could have involved some *mandatory* or *unavoidable perspective* on how to build and broadcast an interstellar message (v. *supra*). In this context, how far short are humans in knowing an extra-terrestrial *modus operandi*, their *ethics*, or *ambassadorship*, it cannot be stated at this time (cf. Michaud, 2007, p. 373; GŁaz, 2014), though the plausible answer perhaps is—very short raised to *n*-th power.<fnref n="33" /> Yet, we should not agonize over the situation, rather than admit the facts. The plus-side of Heller's effort is that collective intelligence seems to be a key driving force in decoding "unknown" messages or signals. All in all, the missive also reveals or reinforces a few things about human nature, its limitations and hopes in achieving information-bearing exchanges with other technologically capable entities.

Now if scholarship searches for a real-life historical analogue, the first to be highlighted is the narrowband ($\leq 10$ kHz) radio signal detected on 15 August 1977 by the “Big Ear” radio telescope, at the time operated by Ohio State University as part of the SETI project. Said detection is known as the “Wow! Signal,” whose discoverer Jerry R. Ehman (one of the project scientists) in analyzing the data on a computer printout, used a red pen to circle the anomaly and wrote next to it “Wow!” (Gray and Marvel, 2001, p. 1171; Schoch, 2017). The question is whether the Wow! signal had been modulated and varying—as is a standard modern radio signal, so as to encode and broadcast information—, it seems to be possible. The answer, on the other hand, i.e., knowing for certain its possible information-bearing capacity, is out of reach due to the “averaging” of the 1977 equipment over ten-second intervals (ibid.). At this point, whether the Wow! signal originated (or not) from a terrestrial source, or whether the generating source was natural or artificial, it is prudent to say that the issue requires further investigation (cf. Gray and Marvel, 2001). If we simply derive from the statistics that thousands of billions of stars make up the Milky Way and other galaxies spread in abundance across portions of the known universe, then it is conceivable that somewhere a planet-bound (or star-bound) mature civilization could have

<footnote>( commendable as it might be) a universal criterion or a specific human projection in an interstellar decipherment venture? Specifically, whilst it stands true that modern astronomy and physics use Western mathematics, other mathematical systems have existed on Earth, with very different ways of understanding and expressing the world, e.g., Sumerians, Babylonians, Mayans, etc. Simply by learning about (radically) different forms of mathematics here on Earth, we would extend the range of analogies SETI researchers can draw upon, and thus could be of use. It would demonstrate the diverse possibilities for mathematical representation. But if human math and science do not look like extraterrestrial math and science, then the Rosetta Stone analogy will not hold up (see ibid.).</footnote>

<footnote n="33">33. Cf. the scenario in S. Lem's "first-contact" story *His Master's Voice* (Lem, 1999).</footnote>
developed the technological means to transmit narrow-bandwidth emissions, producing the *Wow!* signal, or a *Wow!*-like one.

Otherwise, suggestions on receiving other fictitious alien messages have been offered in the not very distant past. Examples would consist of the 1960s television drama "A for Andromeda" written by John Elliott and Fred Hoyle. In that case, radio signals emanating from the Andromeda Galaxy are picked up by the then new radio telescope at Jodrell Bank, near Manchester (Great Britain). The signals included directions for the construction of a computer. This computer enabled the scientists to build a beautiful alien woman—impersonated by Julie Christie in her first appearance on TV screens (see Aldiss, 2006, p. 35; Baxter, 2011, pp. 361–363) [the broadcast was intended for popular consumption]; H. Campaigne (1966), who presented twenty nine (29) radio-messages from “outer space”—the test was limited to a selected audience; Zerwick and Brown (1968) with *The Cassiopeia Affair*, where American radioastronomers detect a pulsed signal at the hydrogen frequency coming from a star in Cassiopeia 30 ly away (Baxter, 2011, p. 351), and Stanisław Lem’s *His Master’s Voice* (Lem, 1999), apparently, with a readership unbounded in terms of education, gender, nationality, and cryptoanalytical skills. One alert voice in this connection is Carrigan (2004) who contends that possibly some incoming ETI messages, intentionally or otherwise, may be contaminated (think of the computer viruses).

Clearly, in writing these lines or in quoting sources with a sense of rationality / dry humor, the present authors are not for quitting or “attacking” any project to bridge differences, but rather for adopting any practical and successful strategy based on a cross-disciplinary approach (see, e.g., Ascheri, 2001; Race et al., 2012; Cabrol, 2016). Then again, based on Cocconi and Morrison (1959); Drake (1961), and on earlier suggestions of the 20th century, it becomes apparent that scientific SETI is a recent endeavor (Denning, 2014, p. 95, n. 3; Cabrol, 2016, p. 669; Harbour, 2019). Improved methods and future findings may hold the key to reduce indeterminacy and foster a substantiated contact with ETI. For now, whether passive or active SETI should prevail during the enterprise, we would favor caution. Also, given the status of technological infancy of Earth’s various cultures (cf. Carrigan, 2004), “listening” and a “delayed reply” would be preferable (cf. Tarter, 2000, p. 727; Gertz, 2016, p. 10). In this line of argument, we may also refer to Heller and Pudritz (2016, p. 276) who—after inspecting various “... regions of the Milky Way from which extraterrestrials might observe non-grazing transits of Earth in front of the Sun”—point out that “even if our species chose to remain radio-quiet to eschew interstellar contact, we cannot hide from observers located in Earth’s solar transit zone, if they exist”. We feel confident, however, that Heller and Pudritz’s (2016) detectability equation would be feasible, were it not for the still inconclusive major variable “if they exist”.
The current sub-section focuses on a domain that teems with aliens and co-related interplay, science fiction. Fictional ETIs (credible, trivialized or over-the-top, alive or already dead) are contacted via sundry protocols in many works of the genre, literary or cinematographic (cf. Tenn, 1952; Simak, 1951; Clement, 1954; Lem, 1970; 1999; Sagan, 1985; Crichton, 1987, pp. 27–30; Barlowe, 1987; *The Day the Earth Stood Still*, 1951; *Alien*, 1979; *Stargate*, 1994; *Independence Day*, 1996; *The First Contact* [of the Star Trek yarn], 1996; Watts, 2006; *Avatar*, 2009; Gomel, 2014; Baxter, 2011; 2015).

Such contacts have produced mixed outcomes for the fate of separate individuals or that of humanity, in general. Most certainly, more contacts in the near future may be expected (see Shostak and Barnett, 2003; Watts, 2006). The involved imagination in these pieces has often been wider than the hard scientific approach (cf. Dickinson and Schaller, 1994, p. 13³⁴; deGrasse Tyson, 2006, p. 17). Regardless of that, this genre of fiction provides grounds as to plausible extremes anticipated in the outer reaches of space. The SETI Institute, the NASA Astrobiology Institute, the ESA (European Space Agency), or similar campaigning organizations should be far more realistic about the odds of a contact and the subsequent human-ETI course of action thereof. There could be scenarios with plausibly intelligent beings following very distinct evolutionary pathways (see Davies, 1995, pp. 82–83; Ward, 2005), which could produce very different models of understanding and explaining the structure of perceived reality (cf. Lem, 1970). Suffice to say that many of the things (on Earth) do not come on a schedule in everyday life. Consider that even on this planet there have been many manifestations outside the territory of normal expectations. Finding a black swan in Australia over three hundred years ago was a real shock because it overturned the paradigm of the white ones (Taleb, 2007). Finding life—without input from photosynthesis—in deep-sea hydrothermal vent systems has profoundly impacted the human view on the geological, geochemical and ecological history of the Earth (Martin, Baross, Kelley, and Russell, 2008, p. 812). More recently, detecting new hardy creatures and species in the abyssal depths or finding extremophile Earth microbes that not only thrive on arsenic—highly toxic by human standards—but rather are “willing” to incorporate it into their genetic code (see Wall, 2010), is quite exciting and makes a good number of scientists feel a bit taken aback.

Researchers, for all practical purposes, should start first examining the Earthly neighborhood and identifying with the *local aliens* (cf. Crichton, 1987, p. 28) through mutually comprehensible channels, before or

<footnote n="34">34. “Extraterrestrials have been featured in hundreds of Hollywood movies—some good, some bad and some really rotten. From bug-eyed monsters to ‘Blob’, they come in all shapes and sizes. Entertaining they may be, but believable? Hardly ever” (Dickinson and Schaller, 1994, p. 13).</footnote>
while venturing successful or satisfactory contact elsewhere (cf. Pajmans, 2004; Doyle, McCowan, Johnston, and Hanser, 2011, pp. 408–409; Harrison, 2011, p. 69; Denning, 2014, p. 110; Raybeck, 2014, p. 143; Robinson, 2017, p. 209; Wolfram, 2018). *Local aliens* do not strictly translate into other-than-human living organisms but also into any lost or unsolved cultural trail left by human beings (e.g., the archaeological site of Göbekli Tepe, in Örencik, Şanlıurfa Province, modern Turkey; the *Linear A* markings; several panels of “Cueva de las Manos,” located in what is today Province of Santa Cruz, Patagonia, Argentina, featuring stencils of human hands alongside other rock paintings; the classical script—*rongorongo*—of Easter Island, see Figs. 8a, 8b, 8c, and 8d). The accumulated experience will largely assist in grasping the range of parameters that best define the construction of ETI-outbound messages and their decipherability.

## 5. Conclusions

Caution and fact-based assessments are needed to control any over-stretching of arguments. Despite this course of action, a few conclusions may be *somewhat devastating* or *hard to digest*—although *useful*, in the end— for a number of those involved in interstellar or inter-species communication. So far, a rather restricted, anthropocentric idea of communication is available; and up to now the success in contacting ETIs is null. A major issue is that the conception by humans of a cross-species, cross-cultural message (linguistic or not), free of any human-related semiotic trace or perspective—sounds for now as the ultimate oxymoron.<fnref n="35" /> All in all, this must not deter the implicated parties by renouncing the endeavor, rather than push them to further improve the “traditional” communicative means and look in the long run for novel semiotic and technological channels (cf., e.g., Cabrol, 2016; Wolfram, 2018).

There is such a lot of nonsense in part of the science fiction literature and in commercial Hollywood-type movies (or not), that many people think that the contacted aliens will verbalize, if not grammatical English, something like (or unlike) English, which will be English after all, once the “universal translators” are turned on or some strange biological / robotic / cyborg-like creatures with impressive translating qualifications are resorted to. Small surprise if critical scholarly voices and/or

<footnote n="35">35. While we are theoretically in agreement with Cabrol (2016, p. 667), “To find ET, we must expand our minds beyond a deeply rooted Earth-centric perspective and reevaluate concepts that are taken for granted,” the question that still remains is: How can we achieve this in the (still) absence of bona fide messages from outer space; alternately, in the absence of a physical encounter between humans and ETIs, or of the detection of alien engineered artifacts / cultural footprints?</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_207.png" /></figure>

FIGURE 8. (a) One of the most exemplary “local aliens” awaiting full “decipherment” from human scholars is the ancient site of Göbekli Tepe, located in the southeastern Anatolia region, modern Turkey. The image captures a partial view of the site, specifically the T-shaped “Pillar 18” and the immediate setting. Photograph © Robert M. Schoch (January, 2020). (b) A partial picture from the “Cave of the Hands,” province of Santa Cruz, Patagonia, Argentina, shows most of the exterior drenched in “hand” stencils; cf. Melka (2017). Reprinted by permission (© J.A. Acosta Fabio, 2008). (c) Narrowing the specification of the source—“Cave of the Hands,” province of Santa Cruz, Patagonia, Argentina—“hand” motifs are observed to occur on any planar surface; cf. Melka (2017). Reprinted by permission (© J.A. Acosta Fabio, 2008). (d) The classical *rongorongo* script coming from Rapa Nui (Easter Island) has defied a cogent interpretation / decipherment since its documented discovery in 1864. The present is a partial image of the back side (= *verso*) of tablet “Aruku Kurenga,” one of the few original items preserved in a remarkably fine state; cf. Melka (2017). The complete text runs to about 1,290 glyphic elements (Barthel, 1958, p. 16; Fischer, 1997b, p. 427; Orliac and Orliac, 2008, p. 253), with the average height size between ten to *ca.* twelve mm and the tablet-weight consisting of 626 grams (Orliac and Orliac, 2008). The © photograph was taken by M. Harris (2009) at the General Archives of the Padri dei Sacri Cuori (SSCC), Rome, Italy.
standing jokes gain acceptance among the academic and popular circles regarding such stereotypes (see Fig. 9).

<figure><img src="image_208.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 9. A screenshot of the alien duo Kang and Kodos from planet Rigel VII featured in a number of episodes of *The Simpsons* TV series (Wikipedia, 2020). The producers of the show have agreed to take / treat the characters humorously and illustrate the point that Rigellian (the alien language from planet Rigel VII), by an astonishing coincidence, is identical to English (cf. Johnson, 2020).</figcaption></figure>

Similarly, it is unknown whether humans will meet safe, cuddly, well-intentioned, or predictable living things out there—however, we do not think trained experts anticipate this to be the case all across the explored space. It is, likewise, unknown if ETIs will be amoral, callous, resenting, obnoxious, and invasive in proportion to what are understood as civilized standards. *Intelligence* and *morality* have produced—over the centuries—benevolent as well as nasty and flawed results here on Earth, too. The present human values *simply* are not and cannot be universal, unless projected or imposed in whatever domain to be prospected and taken possession of (cf. Gorman, 2009).

When *communication* with ETIs is mentioned or envisioned, scientists should come to grips with the human constraints with respect to the many nuances and implications of this very concept. Additional research and progress in space exploration and technological media will be a bonus. Two additional frameworks that merit further serious analysis are semiotics / linguistics and cognitive psychology, given their potential to loosen and minimize the anthropocentric measure. In the light of the premises, it would be better, even nearly-optimal, to get to know ETIs, their socio-ethical values or artifacts in first person, their home-world, colonized outposts, or previously visited cosmic bodies—if not fully, then parts or relics of their existence—(cf. also Davies, 2012; Wright, Mullan, Sigurðsson, and Povich, 2014; Cabrol, 2016, Wolfram,
2018).<fnref n="36" /> Unless sheer serendipity or some unanticipated circumstances favor these scenarios, the more realistic and somewhat less expensive way in 2020 would be upgraded, repeated radio-signaling, laser beaconing,<fnref n="37" /> and interlocution via the principle of *inverse cryptography*, via *self-interpreting messages*, or *messages with ... anti cryptographic properties in mind* (Callimahos, 1966, p. 83;<fnref n="38" /> Dixon, 1973; Lemarchand and Lomberg, 1996; Benford, Benford, and Benford, 2010; Billingham and Benford, 2011; Atri, DeMarines, and Haqq-Misra, 2011; Denning, 2014, p. 102; Saint-Gelais, 2014, p. 89; Vakoch, Matessa, DeVito, and Kaiser, 2018; Harbour, 2019; https://www.sonarcalling.com). Otherwise, matters are still bound to be rated as *intellectual distraction*—valuable and delightful as it eventually might be—or soft science fiction.

## Acknowledgments

Many thanks are tendered to many members of the Library Service of Parkland College, Champaign, IL (USA) for their serenity and professional support. TSM is grateful to many individuals—the list is long—for stimulating discussions during the last nineteen years regarding several writing systems, visual experiments, photographic assistance, and communication methods.

## References

* Acosta Fabio, José Adrián (2008). "Patagonia Común: Cueva de las Manos." URL: http://patagonia.comun.blogspot.al/2008/07/cueva-de-las-manos.html (visited on 3 May 2016).

* Aldhouse-Green, Miranda (2004). *An Archaeology of Images: Iconology and Cosmology in Iron Age and Roman Europe*. London, New York: Routledge.

<footnote n="36">36. Wolfram (2018) looks at the problem in a “different” light: his prospectus for the “beacon project” suggests the deployment of “Earth” beacons (= cultural · technological artifacts / human-related expressions) that may be recognizable and understandable by ETIs as artificially made. We have to point out that the author (2018) also admits the “complicated intellectual and philosophical issues” regarding this undertaking.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">37. Given that Earth technology makes a significant breakthrough in the future in self-replicating traveling probes / nanobots, our “bet” is that these emissaries would prove more efficient in detecting and/or contacting biological (or not) life-forms in other parts of the known space.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">38. In the words of the author, "A communication specially designed, not to hide meaning, but to be as easy as possible to comprehend".</footnote>
Aldiss, Brian (2006). "Intelligent Aliens Are Purely Imaginary." In: *Extraterrestrial Life*. Ed. by Sylvia Engdahl. Originally published as "Desperately Seeking Aliens," *Nature* (22 February 2001) 409, pp. 1080-1082. Detroit: Greenhaven Press / An imprint of Thomson Gale, pp. 30-35.

Artificial Gallery (2006-2010). "Banksy-Trolley Hunters." The screen-print dates originally to 2007. URL: http://www.artificialgallery.co.uk/banksy/trolley-hunters/.

Ascheri, Valeria (2001). "Extraterrestrial Life and Communication Perspectives." In: *First Steps in the Origin of Life in the Universe. Proceedings of the Sixth Trieste Conference on Chemical Evolution, Trieste, Italy, 18-22 September 2000*. Ed. by Julian Chela-Flores, Tobias Owen, and François Raulin. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 349-352.

Asimov, Isaac (1988). *Foundation* series. London: Grafton Books / Collins Publishing Group.

Atri, Dimitra, Julia DeMarines, and Jacob Haqq-Misra (2011). "A Protocol for Messaging to Extraterrestrial Intelligence." In: *Space Policy* 27.3, pp. 165-169.

Bains, William and Dirk Schulze-Makuch (2016). "The Cosmic Zoo: The (Near) Inevitability of the Evolution of Complex, Macroscopic Life." In: *Life* 6.25, pp. 1-27.

Ball, John A. (1973). "The Zoo Hypothesis." In: *Icarus* 19.3, pp. 347-349.

Barlowe, Wayne D. (1987). *Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials*. 2nd ed. New York: Workman Publishing Company, Inc.

Barthel, Thomas S. (1958). *Grundlagen zur Entzifferung der Osterinselschrift*. Vol. 64. Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiet der Auslandskunde. Hamburg: Cram, de Gruyter & Co.

Bauer, Friedrich L. (2002). *Decrypted Secrets: Methods and Maxims of Cryptology*. Berlin: Springer.

Baum, Seth D., Jacob D. Haqq-Misra, and Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman (2011). "Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis." In: *Acta Astronautica* 68.11-12, pp. 2114-2129.

Baxter, Stephen (2011). "SETI in Science Fiction." In: *Searching for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: SETI, Past, Present and Future*. Ed. by H. Paul Shuch. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany / Chichester, UK: Springer / Praxis Publishing, pp. 351-371.

——— (2015). *Xeelee: Endurance*. London: Gollancz.

BBC (2010). "The Beauty of Diagrams, 6 of 6—A BBC documentary series presented by Professor Marcus du Sautoy." URL: http://www.infocobuild.com/books-and-films/science/the-beauty-of-diagrams.html (visited on 24 January 2020).

Benford, Gregory, James Benford, and Dominic Benford (2010). "Searching for Cost-optimized Interstellar Beacons." In: *Astrobiology* 10.5, pp. 491-498.
Bertka, Constance M., ed. (2009). *Exploring the Origin, Extent and Future of Life: Philosophical, Ethical and Theological Perspectives*. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Billingham, John and James Benford (2011). "Costs and Difficulties of Large-scale 'Messaging', and the Need for International Debate on Potential Risks." *arXiv:1102.1938*.

Blum, Joseph (1962). "Book Review: *Lincos, Design of a Language for Cosmic Intercourse*." In: *NSA Technical Journal* 7.1, pp. 91–95.

Brin, David (2011). "A Contrarian Perspective on Altruism: The Dangers of First Contact." In: *Searching for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: SETI, Past, Present and Future*. Ed. by H. Paul Shuch. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany / Chichester, UK: Springer / Praxis Publishing, pp. 429–451.

Brin, David G. (1983). "The Great Silence—The Controversy concerning Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life." In: *Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society* 24, pp. 283–309.

——— (2006). "Shouting at the Cosmos... or How SETI Has Taken a Worrisome Turn into Dangerous Territory." *Lifeboat Foundation—Special Report*. URL: http://lifeboat.com/ex/shouting.at.the.cosmos (visited on 26 June 2017).

Burks, Arthur W., ed. (1966). *Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata: John von Neumann*. Urbana, London: University of Illinois Press.

Byrne, R.W. et al. (2017). "Great Ape Gestures: Intentional Communication with a Rich Set of Innate Signals." In: *Animal Cognition* 20, pp. 755–769.

Cabrol, Nathalie A. (2016). "Alien Mindscapes—A Perspective on the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence." In: *Astrobiology* 16.9, pp. 661–676.

Callimahos, Lambros D. (1966). "Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence." In: *NSA Technical Journal* 9.1, pp. 79–86.

Campaigne, Howard H. (1966). "Extraterrestrial Intelligence." In: *NSA Technical Journal* 11.2, pp. 101–102.

Carrigan Jr., R. A (2004). "The Ultimate Hacker: SETI Signals May Need to be Decontaminated." In: *Bioastronomy 2002: Life among the Stars*. Ed. by R. Norris and F. Stootman. Vol. 213. Proceedings of IAU Symposium. San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific, pp. 519–522.

Chandler, Daniel (2007). *Semiotics: The Basics*. London, New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Chick, Gary (2014). "Biocultural Prerequisites for the Development of Interstellar Communication." In: *Archaeology, Anthropology and Interstellar Communicationby*. Ed. by Douglas A. Vakoch. Washington, DC: Office of Communications, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, pp. 203–226.

Ćirković, Milan M. (2013). "Who Are the SETI Sceptics?" In: *Acta Astronautica* 89, pp. 38–45.
Ćirković, Milan M. (2015). "Kardashev's Classification at 50+: A Fine Vehicle with Room for Improvement." In: *Serbian Astronomical Journal* 191, pp. 1-15.

Clark, Stuart (2000). *Life on other Worlds and How to Find it*. London, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Clement, Hal (1954). *A Mission of Gravity*. New York: Pyramid Publications.

Cocconi, Giuseppe and Philip Morrison (1959). "Searching for Interstellar Communications." In: *Nature* 184, pp. 844-846.

Cohen, Jack and Ian Stewart (2002). *Evolving the Alien*. London: Ebury Press.

Crawford, Ian (1996). "Forum: Where are all the Extraterrestrials?" In: *New Scientist* 2050, p. 52.

Crichton, Michael (1987). *Sphere*. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Davies, Paul (1995). *Are We Alone? Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life*. New York: Basic Books / Harper Collins Publishers.

——— (2010). *The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence*. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

——— (2012). "Footprints of Alien Technology." In: *Acta Astronautica* 73, pp. 250-257.

deGrasse Tyson, Neil (2006). "The Likelihood of Extraterrestrial Life." In: *Extraterrestrial Life*. Ed. by Sylvia Engdahl. Detroit: Greenhaven Press / An imprint of Thomson Gale, pp. 15-20.

Denning, Kathryn E. (2014). "Learning to Read: Interstellar Message Decipherment from Archaeological and Anthropological Perspectives." In: *Archaeology, Anthropology and Interstellar Communicationby*. Ed. by Douglas A. Vakoch. Washington, DC: Office of Communications, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, pp. 95-113.

Dick, Steven J. (1996). *The Biological Universe: The Twentieth-Century Extraterrestrial Life Debate and the Limits of Science*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dickinson, Terence and Adolf Schaller (1994). *Extraterrestrials: A Field Guide for Earthlings*. Camden East, Ontario: Camden House Publishing.

Dixon, Robert S. (1973). "A Search Strategy for Finding Extraterrestrial Radio Beacons." In: *Icarus* 20.2, pp. 187-199.

Doblhofer, Ernst (1993). *Die Entzifferung alter Schriften und Sprachen*. Originally published 1957 under the title *Zeichen und Wunder*, Wien: Paul Neff Verlag KG. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam.

Dobyns, Henry F. (1993). "Disease Transfer Contact." In: *Annual Review of Anthropology* 22, pp. 273-291.

Doyle, Laurance R. et al. (2011). "Information Theory, Animal Communication, and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence." In: *Acta Astronautica* 68.3-4, pp. 406-417.

Drake, Frank D. (1961). "Project Ozma." In: *Physics Today* 14, pp. 40-46.
Drake, Frank D. and Dava Sobel (1992). *Is Anyone Out There? The Scientific Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence*. New York: Delacorte Press.

Dunér, David (2017). "On the Plausibility of Intelligent Life on Other Worlds: A Cognitive-Semiotic Assessment of *f*ᵢ·*f*ₑ·*L*.

Dutil, Yvan and Stéphane Dumas (1999). "Message to ET." In: *Astronomy Now* June 1999, pp. 53–54.

Eco, Umberto (1997). *The Search for the Perfect Language*. Trans. by James Fentress. Oxford, UK / Cambridge, USA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Engdahl, Sylvia, ed. (2006). *Extraterrestrial Life*. Detroit: Greenhaven Press / An imprint of Thomson Gale.

Evamy, Michael (2003). *World without Words*. New York: Watson-Guptil.

Faucounau, Jean (1999). *Le déchiffrement du disque de Phaistos & les Proto-Ioniens: Histoire d'un peuple oublié*. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Fernsler, Terrence (2010). "Relevant Reviews—The Secrets and Science of Body Language. What Veiled Signals are People sending you? Understanding Nonverbal Communication is Crucial to your Success." In: *Nonprofit World* 25. URL: http://www.snpo.org (visited on 2 February 2020).

Finch, Sheila (1986). *Triad*. Toronto: Bantam Spectra Books.

Finney, Ben and Jerry H. Bentley (2014). "A Tale of Two Analogues: Learning at a Distance from the Ancient Greeks and Maya and the Problem of Deciphering Extraterrestrial Radio Transmissions." In: *Archaeology, Anthropology and Interstellar Communicationby*. Ed. by Douglas A. Vakoch. Washington, DC: Office of Communications, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, pp. 65–79.

Fischer, Steven R. (1997a). *Glyph-Breaker*. New York: Copernicus.

— (1997b). *Rongorongo: The Easter Island Script, History, Traditions, Texts*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fogg, Martyn J. (1987). "Temporal Aspects of the Interaction among the First Galactic Civilizations: the Interdict 'Hypothesis'." In: *Icarus* 69, pp. 370–384.

Fontana, David (2003). *The Secret Language of Symbols: A Visual Key to Symbols and their Meanings*. San Francisco: Chronicle Books LLC.

Foucault, Michel (1983). *This Is Not a Pipe*. Trans. by James Harkness. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Freudenthal, Hans (1960). *Lincos: Design of a Language for Cosmic Intercourse (Part I)*. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.

Fröhlich, Marlen and Catherine Hobaiter (2018). "The Development of Gestural Communication in Great Apes." In: *Behavioral Ecology and So-ciobiology* 72.194, pp. 1–14.

Garber, Stephen J. (2014). "A Political History of NASA's SETI Program." In: *Archaeology, Anthropology and Interstellar Communicationby*. Ed. by Douglas A. Vakoch. Washington, DC: Office of Communications, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, pp. 23–48.
Gardner, James (2007). *AI, ET, and the Emerging Mind of the Cosmos*. Franklin Lakes, New Jersey: New Page Books / The Career Press, Inc.

Garrett, Paul (2001). *Making, Breaking Codes: An Introduction to Cryptology*. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Gertz, John (2016). “Reviewing METI: A Critical Analysis of the Arguments.” arXiv:1605.05663.

Ghosh, Pallab (2020). “Astronomers Want Public Funds for Intelligent Life Search.” In: *BBC News. Science & Environment*. URL: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51223704 (visited on 15 February 2020).

Gillon, Michaël, Amaury H.M.J. Triaud, and Didier Queloz (2017). “Seven Temperate Terrestrial Planets around the Nearby Ultracool Dwarf Star TRAPPIST-1.” In: *Nature* 542, pp. 456–460.

Głaz, Adam (2014). “Rorschach, We Have a Problem! The Linguistics of First Contact in Watts’s Blindsight and Lem’s His Master’s Voice.” In: *Science Fiction Studies* 41.2, pp. 364–391. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5621/sciefictstud.41.2.0364 (visited on 26 May 2020).

Golomb, Solomon W. (1961). “Extraterrestrial Linguistics.” In: *Word Ways—The Journal of Recreational Linguistics* 1.4, pp. 202–205. URL: http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/wordways/vol1/iss4/5 (visited on 22 April 2017).

——— (1963). “When is Extra-terrestrial Life Interesting?” In: *Engineering and Science* 26.5, pp. 15–17.

Gombrich, Ernst H. (1982). *The Image and the Eye: Further Studies in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation*. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press / Phaidon Books.

Gomel, Elana (2014). *Science Fiction, Alien Encounters, and the Ethics of Posthumanism: Beyond the Golden Rule*. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Goralnik, Lissy and Michael P. Nelson (2012). “Anthropocentrism.” In: *Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics*. Ed. by Ruth Chadwick. Vol. 1. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 145–155.

Gorman, Alice (2009). “Cultural Landscape of Space.” In: *Handbook of Space Engineering, Archaeology and Heritage*. Ed. by Ann G. Darrin and Beth Laura O’Leary. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press / Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 335–346.

Gray, Robert H. and Kevin B. Marvel (2001). “A Very Large Array Search for the Ohio State ‘Wow’.” In: *The Astrophysical Journal* 546, pp. 1171–1177.

Grinspoon, David (2007). “Who Speaks for Earth?” SeedMagazine.com. URL: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/who_speaks_for_earth/ (visited on visited on 29 June 2017).

Harbour, Daniel (2019). “Writing Systems and METI: Off-the-shelf Encoding of Human Physiology, Language, Cognition, and Culture.” Ms, Queen Mary University of London.
Harris, Martyn (2009). "High-resolution © Picture(s) of Tablet "Aruku Kurenga" taken at the General Archives of the Padri dei Sacri Cuori (SSCC), Rome, Italy." Images in the collection of TSM.

Harrison, Albert A. (2011). "The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: Astrosociology and Cultural Aspects." In: *Astropolitics: The International Journal of Space Politics & Policy* 9.1, pp. 63–83.

——— (2014). "Speaking for Earth: Projecting Cultural Values across Deep Space and Time." In: *Archaeology, Anthropology and Interstellar Communication*. Ed. by Douglas A. Vakoch. Washington, DC: Office of Communications, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, pp. 175–191.

Harrison, Albert A. and Alan C. Elms (1990). "Psychology and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence." In: *Behavioral Science* 35.3, pp. 207–218.

Hayward, Tim (1997). "Anthropocentrism: A Misunderstood Problem." In: *Environmental Values* 6, pp. 49–63.

Heidmann, Jean (1993). "A Replay from Earth: Just send them the Encyclopedia." In: *Acta Astronautica* 29, pp. 233–235.

——— (1995). *Extraterrestrial Intelligence*. Trans. by Storm Dunlop. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heller, René (2017). "Decryption of Messages from Extraterrestrial Intelligence Using the Power of Social Media—the SETI Decrypt Challenge." *arXiv:1706.00653*.

Heller, René and Ralph E. Pudritz (2016). "The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence in Earth's Solar Transit Zone." In: *Astrobiology* 16, pp. 259–270.

Herzing, Denise L. (2014). "Profiling Nonhuman Intelligence: An Exercise in Developing Unbiased Tools for Describing Other 'Types' of Intelligence on Earth." In: *Acta Astronautica* 94.2, pp. 676–680. URL: http://www.wilddolphinproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Herzing-Non-Human-Intell-Acta.pdf (visited on 25 June 2020).

Hewes, Gordon W. (1957). "The Anthropology of Posture." In: *Scientific American* 196, pp. 123–132.

Higenbottam, Frank (1973). *Codes and Ciphers*. London: English Universities Press.

Hofstadter, Douglas R. (1999). *Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid*. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

Hogben, Lancelot T. (1952). "Astraglossa, or First Steps in Celestial Syn tax." In: *Journal of the British Interplanetary Society* 11.6, pp. 258–274.

——— (1961). "Cosmical Language'-A Review of Hans Freudenthal's Lincos, Design of a Language for Cosmic Intercourse." In: *Nature* 192, pp. 826–827.

Irving, John (1994). *The Water-Method Man*. Ealing, London: Corgi Books.
Jarrell, Richard A. (2007). "Littrow [Littroff], Johann Joseph (Edler) von." In: *The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers*. Ed. by Thomas Hockey. New York: Springer, pp. 699–700.

Johnson, Kang (2020). "Simpsons Wiki." URL: https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/Kang (visited on 20 January 2020).

Jonas, Doris and David Jonas (1976). *Other Senses, Other Worlds*. New York: Stein and Day.

Kinsey Goman, Carol (2008). *The Nonverbal Advantage—Secrets and Science of Body Language at Work*. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers.

Kipping, David (2020). "An Objective Bayesian Analysis of Life's Early Start and our Late Arrival." In: *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 117.22, pp. 11995–12003.

Kopnina, Helen et al. (2018). "Anthropocentrism: More than Just a Misunderstood Problem." In: *Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics* 31, pp. 109–127.

Kukla, André (2001). "SETI: On the Prospects and Pursuitworthiness of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence." In: *Studies in History and Philosophy of Science* 32.1, pp. 31–67.

Lem, Stanisław (1970). *Solaris*. Trans. by Joanna Kilmartin and Steve Cox. New York: Walker and Company.

——— (1999). *His Master's Voice*. Trans. by Michael Kandel. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.

Lemarchand, Guillermo A. and Jon Lomberg (1996). "Are There Any Universal Principles in Science and Aesthetics that Could Help Us to Set the Unknown Parameters for Interstellar Communication?" In: *Astronomical and Biochemical Origins and the Search for Life in the Universe, Capri, Italy, July 1–5, 1996*. Vol. 161. International Astronomical Union Colloquium, pp. 4–12. URL: http://www.jonlomberg.com/articles/seti_and_aesthetics.html (visited on 23 July 2017).

Lovecraft, Howard P. (1999). "The Tale of Inspector Leggrasse." In: *The Call of Cthulhu*. Ed. by S.T. Joshi. New York City, NY: Dell, pp. 147–159.

MAB (2020). "Trolleys BANKSY." URL: https://www.myartbroker.com/artist/banksy/trolleys/ (visited on 6 February 2020).

Martin, William et al. (2008). "Reviews—Hydrothermal Vents and the Origin of Life." In: *Nature Reviews* 6, pp. 805–814.

Matloff, Gregory L. (2005). *Deep Space Probes: To the Outer Solar System and Beyond*. 2nd ed. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany / Chichester, UK: Springer / Praxis Publishing.

Mayr, Ernst (1985). "The Probability of Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life." In: *Extraterrestrials: Science and Alien Intelligence*. Ed. by Edward Regis Jr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23–30.

Melka, Tomi S. (2008). "Structural Observations regarding *rongorongo* Tablet 'Keiti'." In: *Cryptologia* 32.2, pp. 155–179.

——— (2010). "The Moche Lima Beans Recording System, Revisited." In: *Electronic Journal of Folklore* 45, pp. 89–136.
——— (2013). "'Harmonic'-like Sequences in the *rongorongo* Script." In: *Glottotheory: International Journal of Linguistics (Akademie-Verlag, Berlin)* 4.2, pp. 115-139.

——— (2017). "A Developmental Continuum for the *rongorongo* Script of Easter Island (Part 1)." Manuscript in the Collection of TSM.

Melka, Tomi S. and Michal Místecký (2020). "On Stylometric Features of H. Beam Piper's Omnilingual." In: *Journal of Quantitative Linguistics* 27.3, pp. 204-243.

Melka, Tomi S. and Robert M. Schoch (2020). "Exploring a Mysterious Tablet from Easter Island: The Issues of Authenticity and Falsifiability in *rongorongo* Studies." In: *Cryptologia* 44.6, pp. 481-544.

Messerschmitt, David G. and Ian S. Morrison (2012). "Design of Interstellar Digital Communication Links: Some Insights from Communication Engineering." In: *Acta Astronautica* 78.1, pp. 80-89.

METI.org (2020). "Mission—The Primary Objectives and Purposes of METI International." URL: http://meti.org/en/mission (visited on 20 April 2020).

Michael, George (2014). "Extraterrestrial Intelligence: Friends, Foes, or Just Curious?" In: *Extraterrestrial Altruism*. Ed. by Douglas A. Vakoch. An Adaptation of Michael, George (2011). "Extraterrestrial Aliens: Friends, Foes, or Just Curious?" *Skeptic* 16(3), pp. 46-53. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Michaud, Michael A.G. (2007). *Contact with Alien Civilizations: Our Hopes and Fears about Encountering Extraterrestrials*. New York: Copernicus Books / Springer.

Musso, Paolo (2012). "The Problem of Active SETI: An Overview." In: *Acta Astronautica* 78, pp. 43-54.

National Geographic (2010). "Cobra vs. Mongoose." URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdg9gkmWsEA (visited on 26 July 2017).

Neal, Mark (2014). "Preparing for Extraterrestrial Contact." In: *Risk Management* 16.2, pp. 63-87.

Nieman, H.W. and C. Wells Nieman (1920). "What Shall We Say to Mars?" In: *Scientific American* 122.12, pp. 298-312.

Olivier, Jean Pierre, Louis Godart, and Jean-Claude Poursat (1996). *Corpus Hieroglyphicarum Inscriptionum Cretae (CHIC)*. Vol. 31. Études Crétoises. Paris: De Boccard.

Orliac, Michel and Catherine Orliac (2008). *Trésors de l'île de Pâques / Treasures of Easter Island*. Collection de la Congrégation des Sacrés-Cœurs de Jésus et de Marie SS. CC. Genève: Frédéric Dawance / Paris: Louise Leiris.

Pajmans, J.J. (2004). "The Language Question: Corpus Linguistics for non-Human Communication." URL: http://sites.millersville.edu/bduncan/221/animals/bees/paijmans-baden.pdf (visited on 24 July 2017).
Pope, Maurice (1999). *The Story of Decipherment: From Egyptian Hieroglyphs to Maya Script*. London: Thames & Hudson.

Potts, Alex (1996). "Sign." In: *Critical Terms for Art History*. Ed. by Robert S. Nelson and Richard Shiff. London, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 20–34.

Race, Margaret et al. (2012). "Astrobiology and Society: Building an Interdisciplinary Research Community." In: *Astrobiology* 12.10, pp. 958–965.

Raup, David M. (1992). "Nonconscious Intelligence in the Universe." In: *Acta Astronautica* 26.3–4, pp. 257–261.

Raybeck, Douglas (2014). "Contact Considerations: A Cross-Cultural Perspective." In: *Archaeology, Anthropology and Interstellar Communication*. Ed. by Douglas A. Vakoch. Washington, DC: Office of Communications, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, pp. 143–161.

Reddy, Francis (2012). *Celestial Delights: The Best Astronomical Events through 2020*. The Patrick Moore Practical Astronomy Series. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Regis Jr., E., ed. (1985). *Extraterrestrials: Science and Alien Intelligence*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rescher, N. (1985). "Extraterrestrial Science." In: *Extraterrestrials: Science and Alien Intelligence*. Ed. by E. Regis Jr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 83–116.

Robinson, Andrew (2002). *Lost Languages: The Enigma of the World's Undeciphered Scripts*. New York: McGraw-Hill.

——— (2017). "Cryptography: The Codes that Got Away." In: *Nature* 546, pp. 208–209.

Rosenthal, Jake (2016). "The Pioneer Plaque: Science as a Universal Language." URL: http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/2016/0120-the-pioneer-plaque-science-as-a-universallanguage.html (visited on 21 March 2017).

Russell, Eric Frank (1955). "Allamagoosa." In: *Astounding Science Fiction* 55.3, pp. 48–59.

Sagan, Carl (1985). *Contact*. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Sagan, Carl, Linda Salzman Sagan, and Frank D. Drake (1972). "A Message from Earth." In: *Science* 175.4024, pp. 881–884. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1733664 (visited on 15 January 2020).

Saint-Gelais, Richard (2014). "Beyond Linear B: The Metasemiotic Challenge of Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence." In: *Archaeology, Anthropology and Interstellar Communication*. Ed. by Douglas A. Vakoch. Washington, DC: Office of Communications, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, pp. 78–95.

Schetsche, Michael (2005). "SETI and the Consequences: Futurological Reflections on the Confrontation of Mankind with an Extrater-
restrial Civilization.” URL: http://astrosociology.com/Library/PDF/Contributions/SETIandConsequences_ENG.pdf (visited on 1 May 2017).

Schmidt, Stanley (1995). *Aliens and Alien Societies*. Ed. by Ben Bova. Science Fiction Writing Series. Cincinnati, OH: Writer's Digest Book / F&W Publications, Inc.

Schoch, Robert M. (2017). “The Wow! Signal Controversy: Was Evidence of Extraterrestrials Detected in 1977?” Manuscript in the collections of the RMS and TSM.

Shermer, Michael (2002). "Why ET Hasn't Called." In: *Scientific American* 287.2 (August 2002), p. 33.

Shklovskii, Iosif Samuilovich and Carl Sagan (1966). *Intelligent Life in the Universe*. San Francisco: Holden-Day.

Shostak, Seth and Alexandra Barnett (2003). *Cosmic Company: The Search for Life in the Universe*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shuch, H. Paul, ed. (2011). *Searching for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: SETI, Past, Present and Future*. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany / Chichester, UK: Springer / Praxis Publishing.

Simak, Clifford D. (1951). "Beachhead (originally, You'll Never Go Home Again)." In: *Fantastic Adventures, July 1951*. Ed. by Howard Browne. Interior artwork by Leo Summers. Chicago, IL: Ziff-Davis Publishing Company, pp. 72–87.

Smith, Reginald D. (2009). "Broadcasting but not receiving: Density Dependence Considerations for SETI Signals." In: *International Journal of Astrobiology* 8.2, pp. 101–105.

Sproat, Richard W. (2007). "Decipherment, Pseudodecipherment and the Phaistos disk." In: *A Workshop on Scripts, Non-scripts and (Pseudo)-decipherment. Abstracts for Talks: Braun Auditorium, Stanford University*. URL: http://serrano.ai.uiuc.edu/2007Workshop/abstracts.html (visited on 5 September 2007).

——— (2008). "The Use of Corpora in Teaching and Research: Theoretical Preliminaries." URL: http://www.linguistics.uiuc.edu/rws/ (visited on 12 September 2008).

Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (2007). *The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable*. New York: Random House.

Tarter, Donald E. (2000). "Security Considerations in Signal Detection." In: *Acta Astronautica* 46.10–12, pp. 725–728.

Tegmark, Max (2003). "Parallel Universes." In: *Scientific American* 288.5, pp. 41–51.

Tenn, William (1952). "Betelgeuse Bridge." In: *Tomorrow, The Stars*. Ed. by Robert Heinlein. New York: Doubleday and Co., pp. 136–155.

Tipler, Frank J. (1980). "Extraterrestrial Intelligent Beings do not Exist." In: *Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society* 21, pp. 267–281.

Tomasello, Michael and Josep Call (2018). "Thirty Years of Great Ape Gestures." In: *Animal Cognition* 20, pp. 461–469.
Tredoux, Gavan (2018). "Francis Galton on Mars: The 'Discontinuous Variation' Notebook. Appendix D. Telegraphing to Mars." URL: http://galton.org/mars/tredoux-2018-galton-on-mars.pdf (visited on 18 May 2020).

Vakoch, Douglas A. (1998). "Constructing Messages to Extraterrestrials: An Exosemiotic Perspective." In: *Acta Astronautica* 42, pp. 697–704.

——— (2000). "The Conventionality of Pictorial Representation in Interstellar Messages." In: *Acta Astronautica* 46.10–12, pp. 733–736.

——— (2011a). "A Taxonomic Approach to Communicating Maxims in Interstellar Messages." In: *Acta Astronautica* 68.3–4, pp. 500–511.

——— (2011b). "What's Past is Prologue: Future Messages of Cosmic Evolution." In: *Searching for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: SETI, Past and Present and Paul, Future*. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany / Chichester, UK: Springer / Praxis Publishing, pp. 373–398.

——— ed. (2014a). *Archaeology, Anthropology and Interstellar Communication*. Washington, DC: Office of Communications, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

——— ed. (2014b). *Extraterrestrial Altruism*. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

——— (2014c). "Introduction: Reconstructing Distant Civilizations and Encountering Alien Cultures." In: *Archaeology, Anthropology and Interstellar Communication*. Ed. by Douglas A. Vakoch. Washington, DC: Office of Communications, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, pp. xiii–xxx.

Vakoch, Douglas A. and Matthew F. Dowd, eds. (2015). *The Drake Equation: Estimating the Prevalence of Extraterrestrial Life through the Ages*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vakoch, Douglas A. et al. (2018). "A Mathematical and Scientific Message for Active SETI." In: *Proceedings of the 42nd COSPAR Scientific Assembly, 14–22 July 2018, Pasadena, California*, pp. 14–22. URL: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018cosp%5Ceee%7B...42%7D%7B3485%7DV/abstract (visited on 22 April 2020).

Vanderburg, Andrew et al. (2020). "A Habitable-zone Earth-sized Planet Rescued from False Positive Status." In: *The Astrophysical Journal Letters* 893.1.

Vito, Carl L. de and Richard T. Oehrle (1990). "A Language Based on the Fundamental Facts of Science." In: *Journal of the British Interplanetary Society* 43.12, pp. 561–568.

Wall, Mike (2010). "NASA Hasn't Found Alien Life, But Arsenic Microbe Still 'Phenomenal'." URL: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/arsenic-bacteria-extraterrestrial-life-search-101202.html (visited on 20 March 2014).

Ward, Peter D. (2005). *Life as We Do Not Know It: the NASA Search for (and Synthesis of) Alien Life*. New York: Viking / Penguin Group.

Watts, Peter (2006). *Blindsight*. New York: Thor Books.
Webb, Stephen (2002). *If the Universe Is Teaming with Aliens... Where Is Every-body? Fifty Solutions to Fermi's Paradox and the Problem of Extraterrestrial Life.* New York: Copernicus.

Westby, Tom and Christopher J. Conselice (2020). "The Astrobiological Copernican Weak and Strong Limits for Intelligent Life." In: *The Astrophysical Journal* 896.58, pp. 1-18.

Wolfram, Stephen (2018). "Showing Off to the Universe: Beacons for the Afterlife of Our Civilization." In: *Writings*. URL: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2018/01/showing-off-to-the-universe-beacons-for-the-afterlife-of-our-civilization/ (visited on 8 May 2020).

Wright, J. T. et al. (2014). "The Ĝ Infrared Search for Extraterrestrial Civilizations with Large Energy Supplies. I. Background and Justification." In: *The Astrophysical Journal* 792.

Zackrisson Erik et al. (2016). "Terrestrial Planets across Space and Time." In: *The Astrophysical Journal* 833.2.

Zaitsev, Alexander L. (2008a). "Sending and Searching for Interstellar Messages." In: *Acta Astronautica* 63, pp. 614-617.

——— (2008b). "The First Musical Interstellar Radio Message." In: *Journal of Communications Technology and Electronics* 53.9, pp. 1107-1113.

Zerwick, C. and H. Brown (1968). *The Cassiopeia Affair*. New York: Doubleday.

Zörnig, Peter and Tomi S. Melka (2014). "An Ethnographic Study of the Pintaderas of Gran Canaria (Canary Islands): A Measuring Theoretic Approach for Quantifying Symmetry." In: *Glottometrics* 29, pp. 31-58.
<figure><img src="image_209.png" /></figure>
# Mute Melodies

Christine Kettaneh

*Abstract.* Mute Melodies is a short tour through an artist's work that investigates the boundaries of language and systems in research-based projects that are simultaneously sculptural and performative, and that articulates language as both excavated material and excavation technique. Or, alternatively, an artist's journey through everyday matter: soap on the wash basin, ants in the garden, sugar on the kitchen table, keys in locks—language in the mouth.

## 1. Introduction

In my practice as an artist, I have an inclination to the conceptual, yet I am unable to forget about matter. As Patricia Berry (2008) puts it, in *Echo's Subtle Body*, matter is both the most necessary and the most lacking, the tangible and the incorporeal, the form and the chaos. Maybe it is this paradox within matter that sustains my interest. My mind cannot make up words for abstract thought just out of thin air; the mind can make use of only what is already at hand: the physical, the concrete, the body, matter... It is actually out of our need to expand our range of expression, that our language flows from the concrete to the abstract through what we commonly know as metaphor. So I would like to think of art as metaphor which means “carry across” in Greek or “transfer” in Latin.

In my practice, the visual, the research and the writing inform each other. When I write and when I work with the visual I feel I am activating the same region in my brain, perhaps the same gnostic neurons that help me make connections and links between the conceptual and the physical space that I would have otherwise not been able to make. The verb ‘to essay’ means, “to attempt at;” I would like to consider art, as an essay that attempts at metaphor, at what takes place entirely within the fiction of the mind: Art is an attempt at understanding.

<figure><img src="image_210.png" /></figure>
## 2. Soap Coins: The Economic Metaphors

<figure><img src="image_211.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 1</figcaption></figure>

Clare Whistler invited me to collaborate with her and Chris Drury in one of Clare's Gift series: *Coin—a gift for wealth*, in Seaford, UK (May '14). Aware that I had previously been trained as an economist she asked me if I could make coins that we would set to sea after a ritual. I responded with *Soap Coins*.

Economic reasoning is highly metaphorical but economists are not so conscious of it because they are accustomed to it by daily use. As I stepped back from the field, I found it easier to see the metaphors. So for that project, I considered different metaphors that were commonly used in economics and finally decided on a list of 6 that gave off tactile associations: Equilibrium, Maximizing, Elasticity, Liquidity, Volatility, and The invisible hand. For each of the 6, I designed a coin made up of soap. In each soap, I engraved the word along with simple compositions made up of curves inspired by the metaphor's economic model as well as its literal or noneconomic meaning. Most economic models can be represented by curves and their intersections, the famous equilibrium points. So at every point where the curves would meet recto verso on the soap, I made a hole.

Clare had no prior knowledge of economic theory and she requested that I give her her very first lesson—in front of an audience. Although I had hoped I would not have to teach the basics of economics again that soon and had secretly wished that my memory could somehow vaporize them, the responsibility of the years I had put in acquiring them still burdened me. So I obliged. I explained to her the assumed maximizing behavior of people... I explained how the consumer made de-
cisions in a way to maximize his utility, how the supplier made deci-
sions in a way to maximize his profit, and assuming that everyone was
behaving—rationally—in his own self-interest, how the market reached
equilibrium. And then when the equilibrium was not favorable, how
government could, by making decisions in a way to maximize welfare,
lead equilibrium to an assumed optimal.

Not surprisingly, Clare barely managed to answer any of my econom-
ics questions ‘rationally.’ Instead, she gestured with her hands every
time I tried to define a word like equilibrium, elasticity or liquidity. Her
gestures gradually grew into more elaborate movements and as soon as
the lesson was over, she continued with her dance moving outside the
room, outside the house onto a path towards the sea. And the audience
followed her in her trance.

When they reached the sea, Clare handed them the coins. She re-
quested they rub them hard with water, exchange them and then repeat.
As they did that, the words—the metaphors that launched the ritual—
started to effervesce and the coins started to smell and melt. All that
remained for Clare to keep were the holes in the coins.

3. Mute Melodies: The Dead Metaphors

<figure><img src="image_212.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2</figcaption></figure>

Metaphor is not only for the economists, poets or the fancy and
sophisticated. Even when we are not conscious of it, we are using
metaphor in our everyday language. Metaphors are words that help us
cross the realm of the physical to the abstract. When words are used
frequently enough in their metaphorical abstract sense we forget their
literal physical origins and so the metaphors die. But with their deaths
they form the building blocks of our language. For example, take the most mundane word: the verb "To have". What is it really that we do when we have a hand, a leg, a house, a headache, or a cousin? As Guy Deutscher (2005) explains in *The Unfolding of Language*, 'To have' or more generally the idea of possession is an abstract notion. Actually 'to have' as well as 'to capture' are derived from the same Proto-Indo-European root *kap* which means 'to seize.' In other languages, where the word 'to have' does not have an exact equivalent, the notion of possession is expressed through other words borrowed from physical situations of having something like the transitive verbs 'to take, hold, carry or get' or expressions related to images of physical proximity like something being near, on or at you...

As for me, the idea of possession lies in a key. We always obsess about losing or misplacing the key because the key embodies power; with it we control our ownership, our security. The key fosters the separation between "yours" and "mine." It represents our fears from one another or our desire for independence from each other. But I am not interested in the key. I am interested in the bits of the key that get lost when the key is cut. Those cut bits leave a space, but not an absence, because it is in that space that the essence of the key system lies. Every time a key and the right lock do their affair, that space is reactivated. The pins align in one unique mute melody. And then there is an opening, a closing, a sharing, a stealing and an on and off.

So if the cutting of the key activates the idea of possession, the idea of something close to you—at the extreme the idea of you—then that space between the key and the lock reactivates that idea whenever it is occupied. So in response to that idea, I started a ritual. I asked key cutters around London to save all their metal filings—the metallic dust that gets lost when the keys are cut—and I collected them. I also asked friends to entrust me with their sets of house keys and to describe to me the paths they would take every time they entered their homes, from the outermost layer to the innermost. I fancied the idea of retracing the missing bits of their keys and restoring their wholeness.

For some, the retraced bits looked like Arabic or some other script. For others, they looked like waves or ships. It wasn't until you read my text in the book under the installation of bits that you found clues to what they actually were: retraced missing bits of keys. You could also cut your own copy of the text/key along the perforated margins of the book, leaving me again with the bits.

But to me, today, the bits look like little unique gravestones to the dead metaphors of possession: 'To have'.
4. Smell Me, Touch Me, Kiss Me: The Chemical Metaphors

<figure><img src="image_213.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 3</figcaption></figure>

*Synesthesia* is a perceptual phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway leads to involuntary experiences in an other sensory or cognitive pathway. For example, you see colors when you hear words or sounds; you taste food when you see words or shapes; you hear sounds when you smell scents or touch objects; you feel a touch when you see someone else being touched etc.

We actually all have some synesthetic abilities: we instinctively can find, or create, synesthetic patterns. If synesthesia is the result of cross-connectivity among the brain's sensory regions, the same connectivity could explain how our metaphorical thinking can create a kind of conceptual synesthesia, in which the abstract is understood in the context of the concrete or physical. And many of the metaphors we use everyday are synesthetic.

My dad had grown a beautiful garden but passed away just before the trees bore their first fruit. With our bitter hearts and salty tears, we welcomed the remarkable sweetness of that first harvest. After his 10th memo-
rial I went into his garden in search of him. Over two months I prepared and served sweet letters to the garden. The ants responded.

Far simpler but not any less interesting than human metaphors are the metaphors exchanged between ants. Ants communicate mostly chemically through pheromones which are scented chemicals produced by glands found all over their bodies. Those chemicals are detected as the ants feel each other through the tips of their super sensitive antennae. They may relay further messages by kissing, a common practice called trophallaxis, which is an exchange of liquid food regurgitated and mixed with pheromones. Their vocabulary seems crude typically containing only ten to twenty perfumes, each representing a 'chemical metaphor' that could for instance be signaling: Run away! There is food over here! I'm on foraging duty! Attack!

According to Steven Johnson (2004), in his book *Emergence*, many of those signs operate in a relatively simple binary fashion—signaling, for instance, whether another ant is a nestmate or an enemy. But ants can also detect gradients in pheromones, revealing which way the scent is growing stronger. Gradients in the pheromone trail are the difference between saying “there’s food around here somewhere” or with more confidence “there’s food due north of here.”

So when an ant stumbled across one of my sweet words in the garden, it marked a scented trail on the way back to the nest so that more ants might follow. When an ant encountered another ant, it felt the other ant with its antennae; they then kissed as they recited scented liquid letters to each other. If an ant found a shorter path to the words, it secreted a stronger scent indicating more confidence and hence diverting the trail. Successful trails were followed by more ants, reinforcing better routes and gradually identifying the best delivery lines for my letter. After this long sweet affair with the ants, the underground became a mine of smells, touches and kisses.

## Emergence

Ants are also particularly good at measuring the frequency of certain 'metaphors', a talent that also broadens the semantic range of the ant language. Ants can sense the difference between encountering ten foraging ants in an hour and encountering a hundred. This local talent is critical to the colony's global ability to adjust task allocation according to colony size and food supply. All the individual ant needs to do is mind its immediate neighbor and the colony would magically self-organize. Pheromones play the central role in the organization of the ant colonies. The key to that intelligence is simple: the ants smell, touch and kiss—literally!

By following simple rules, ants can create a colony; heart cells can cluster into a heart; people can assemble into a neighborhood; and a
software can learn how to recommend new books. The movement from low-level rules to higher-level sophistication is what we call emergence. I am interested in emergence/complexity/science of self-organization, how a complex organism/system could assemble itself without any master planner. An emergent system experiments, learns and grows by responding to feedback. Through emergence, large patterns emerge out of uncoordinated local actions. The crossing over of metaphor from the concrete to the abstract, or more generally the evolution of language can be also considered as an emergent phenomenon. While each person tries to reach his or her own communicative or expressive goals in various social circumstances, he or she uses a word in a particular way. If enough people use it in that same way, a metaphor is born and later dies; language is changed.

## 5. Hayat: The Conceptual Metaphor

<figure><img src="image_214.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 4</figcaption></figure>

Our 'conceptual metaphors' influence our perception of the world. The images gain independent existence, and through our cultural artefacts, they even shape the world around us. The classic definition of
metaphor is giving a thing a name that belongs to something else. But when we give a thing a name that belongs to something else, we give it a whole set of analogies too. So when I fell upon an old advertisement from the 1950s of a traditional Lebanese bar of soap called *Hayat*, which means life in Arabic, I was very intrigued to investigate.

I discovered that Hayat still existed and was being made in a newer facility in Tripoli, North of Lebanon. I also discovered that Hayat was the daughter of the cook that had originally made the soap. According to some accounts, the cook named the soap Hayat after his daughter and according to other accounts, he named his daughter after the soap. Which story was more true or less true did not matter, I wanted to find Hayat. Excited, I tracked down Hayat's son and met with him. During our encounter, Hayat's son talked extensively about his life and about his dad's life. When I finally asked about Hayat, with a blank look he said: Hayat led a 'normal' life.

How can 'normal' be inspiring?! I thought with a sigh. He suggested I meet her when she was back from her travels. I then asked if perhaps he would share some old photos of her. He explained that Hayat might not approve because she was veiled later in her life. I knew I would not ask about Hayat anymore. I preferred to leave her veiled in the intimacy of her own 'normal' life. I realized I could only try to unveil the 'hayat' in my hands. I went back to the ad: there was a hand holding the soap up with the tips of its fingers. Very elegantly, very lightly, so unlike how you would carry a rough brick-like heavy traditional bar of soap. I wondered whether it had been the name Hayat, life in Arabic, that had allowed that divergence. So I explored the different possible ways of carrying hayat.

According to David McNeill (2005), an expert on the relationship between gesture and thinking, gestures can draw forms or spaces that induce imagery for abstract meanings. Through metaphor and metaphorical gestures, body and mind can be intimately entangled. The body is the most immediate thing in our physical environment, so it is no wonder that there is hardly any part of the body that has not been the origin of a metaphor for spatial and more abstract concepts. For example, words like behind, back, and front are all body-parts marching towards abstraction. The word life itself is derived from roots that refer to the abdomen, waist, or womb but most importantly roots that refer to the whole body.

I think, life is soap. It is made so it is unmade; it is worth all that consumes it; it is the dirt between your hands, the sweat of your body and the stains on your best of clothes. I also think, language is soap. It clears as much as it slips; it is decorative; it is plain; it can take on different forms. Then there must be life in language. And language in life.
According to Ghassan Tueini, Lebanese journalist, politician, and diplomat, there is life in every letter; every day the letter is born both young and old (Fondation Libanaise de la Bibliothèque Nationale, 2010, p. 11). So I think it is possible then that a hand can carry a bar of hayat, a bar of life that is simultaneously young and old, heavy and light.

## 6. Conclusion

In *Mourning Sex*, Peggy Phelan (1997) said the words fled because they were sick of our literal faith in them; Healers wanted the words to comfort, politicians wanted them to inspire, and artists wanted them to make magic. We believed so much in the words we made them carry our dreams and histories. Peggy Phelan realized that, like her lover, the words fled because they had been horribly misrecognized. We made the mistake of loving the words for the way they made us feel and behave and forgot to love the words for the "more in-them-than-themselves that made it possible for them to create something we could never control, the more-in-them that made it possible for them to travel to places whose topography we could never map." (1997, p. 7) So the words ran out of our ears, out of our mouths, flew right out of our bodies and rang and clanged high up in the sky and finally exploded in a big cacophony of sounds.

I like to explore the effect on language if we suspend our literalness. We may have to accept the partialness of experience and the fallibility of memory, and then allow both perception and remembering to be tools of invention rather than recording. That way, a new sense may develop not from History alone but also from Fiction—a projection of reality.

Our reality is handed to us at a macro level: at any moment it is the result of a complex historical development. Yet we can only interact or add to this reality at a micro level. Because of that mismatch in scales, between macro and micro, we feel ignorant. And it is that ignorance that makes us feel alienated. We think that by excavating history ever more thoroughly we would be able to ease that sense of alienation. But the truth is our experience, our perception of reality, will always contain more than what we know. To define an object, a person, or a system by its history would only limit it. So a more complete understanding can be achieved in trusting that very sense of alienation in our experience of reality. So that is why I am interested in our most immediate experience of reality, our ‘everyday,’ like the ants in our gardens, the keys in our hands, the soap on our wash basins, the sugar on our kitchen tables, and most importantly the language on our tongues.

My search involves an enquiry into language. There is a temporary forgetting of meaning as I feed the alphabet to the ants and as I suspend my search for the origin of Hayat. Only to pick up the words again and
use them as triggers for rituals in the hopes of smelling, touching and kissing matter's more metaphorical possibilities.

By bringing together what we know and what we don't know through analogy, metaphorical thinking helps us understand, learn and communicate. Most importantly it opens the door to the greatest discoveries and inventions.

## 7. Art Exhibition

### Soap Coins: The Economic Metaphors

<figure><img src="image_215.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 5</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_216.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 6</figcaption></figure>
Mute Melodies: The Dead Metaphors

<figure><img src="image_217.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 7</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_218.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 8</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_219.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 9</figcaption></figure>
Smell Me, Touch Me, Kiss Me: The Chemical Metaphors

<figure><img src="image_220.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 10</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_221.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 11</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_222.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 12</figcaption></figure>
Hayat: The Conceptual Metaphor

<figure><img src="image_223.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 13</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_224.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 14</figcaption></figure>
## Image Details

Figure 1 Designs of ‘*Soap Coins*’, Christine Kettaneh, 2014.

Figure 5 *Soap Coins*, Christine Kettaneh, laser engraving on soap, 2014.

Figure 6 Washing with *Soap Coins* at *Coin—a gift for wealth*, event organized by Clare Whistler and Chris Drury, Seaford, UK, photo courtesy of Kevin Costello, 2014.

Figure 2 Designs of ‘*Mute Melody to P*’, Christine Kettaneh, 2013.

Figure 7 *Mute Melody to C*, *Mute Melody to P dot*, *Mute Melody to G*, Christine Kettaneh, 2013, laser-engraving on plywood, 20×20 cm each, ed. 2/2.

Figure 8 *Bags of ‘unobsessivenesses’*, part of Mute Melodies project, Christine Kettaneh, 2013, bags of metal filings, Exposure 2013, Beirut Art Center, image courtesy of Roland Ragi.

Figure 9 *time cutting time*, part of *Mute Melodies* project, Christine Kettaneh, 2013, acrylic pieces and artist book, Exposure 2013, Beirut Art Center.

Figure 3 *EMERGE*, Christine Kettaneh, 2016, cold press bright paper, ed. 1/4, 24×32 cm.

Figure 10 *SMELL ME*, Christine Kettaneh, 2016, cold press bright paper, ed. 1/4, 24×32 cm.

Figure 11 Art Installation (artist book, rotating sugar ball & box of sugar letters) part of *Smell me, Touch me, Kiss me* project, Christine Kettaneh, 2017.

Figure 12 *Comma, Semi colon1*, & *Semi colon2*, Christine Kettaneh, 2016, cold press bright paper, ed. 1/4, 18×24 cm each.

Figure 4 Designs of ‘*How do you Carry Life?*,’ Christine Kettaneh, 2016.

Figure 13 *Hayat old ad*, 40×14 cm, *Hayat old stamp*, 40×53 cm, *How do you carry life?*, 40×48 cm, cold press bright paper, ed. 3/4, Christine Kettaneh Solo Show 2018, Gagliardi e Domke, Turin.

Figure 14 *Proof that there is life in language and language in life*, part of *Hayat* project, paint on soap, 6.5×6.5×4.5 cm each, ed. 3/4, Christine Kettaneh Solo Show 2018, Gagliardi e Domke, Turin.

## References

Berry, P. (2008). *Echo's subtle body: contributions to an archetypal psychology*. 2nd ed. Connecticut: Spring Publications.

Deutscher, G. (2005). *The Unfolding of Language: An Evolutionary Tour of Mankind's Greatest Invention*. London: Random House.

Fondation Libanaise de la Bibliothèque Nationale (2010). قرن من الصحافة [Cent Ans de la Presse au Liban, 1858-1958]. Beirut: Fondation Libanaise de la Bibliothèque Nationale.
Johnson, S. (2004). *Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software*. New York: Scribner.

Kettaneh, C. (2014). "Mute Melodies." URL: http://www.christinekettaneh.com/ (visited on August 27, 2020).

——— (2015). "Soap Coins." URL: http://www.christinekettaneh.com/ (visited on August 27, 2020).

——— (2017a). "Hayat." URL: http://www.christinekettaneh.com/ (visited on August 27, 2020).

——— (2017b). "Smell me, Touch me, Kiss me." URL: http://www.christinekettaneh.com/ (visited on August 27, 2020).

Martinez, C. (2012). "Unexpress the expressible." In: *DOCUMENTA 13: The Book of Books*. Ed. by Katrin Sauerlander. 100 Notes - 100 Thoughts. Ostfildern, Germany: Hatje Cantz.

Martinez, Chus (2012). "How a tadpole becomes a frog. Belated aesthetics, politics, and animated matter: toward a theory of artistic research." In: *DOCUMENTA 13: The Book of Books*. Ed. by Katrin Sauerlander. 100 Notes - 100 Thoughts. Ostfildern, Germany: Hatje Cantz.

McNeill, D. (2005). *Gesture and Thought*. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.

Phelan, Peggy (1997). *Mourning sex: performing public memories*. London: Routledge.
<figure><img src="image_225.png" /></figure>
# Index

## A

abbreviation, 14, 15, 32, 33, 60–63,
76, 77, 91, 269, 282, 378,
514, 631, 719, 819, 946,
1078

marker, 15

abjad, 51, 53, 54, 60, 76, 134, 178,
180, 228, 625, 781, 807–
811, 820, 822, 910, 1109

Abkhaz, 115

abstract, 561, 563, 565, 567
object, 9

abugida, 54, 162, 163, 165, 177,
180, 184, 228, 625, 807–
811, 818–820, 822

acrophonic, 208, 232
principle, 168, 224, 232

acrostics, 1109, 1111–1113, 1116

Adobe, 441

Aegean, 807, 809

Aidarus, 980

Ajami, 971

Akkadian, 59, 116, 117, 216, 218,
929, 1112

al-Busiri, 980

al-Inkishafi, 977

Albanian, 166, 373, 392

aleph, 466, 1114, 1115

Algerian (typeface), 397

Algernon, 276, 278

*Alice in Wonderland*, 350, 351

alloglottoepy, 790

alloglottography, 790

allography, 129, 134, 136, 232, 233

alphabet, 89, 144–148, 150, 152,
154, 155, 157, 166, 168–
170, 172, 177, 180, 182,
185–187, 218, 223–230,
232, 234–236, 241, 242,
244, 429, 432, 463, 473,
569, 763, 765, 807, 810,
811, 822, 825, 829, 831,
837, 841, 888, 907, 908,
910, 916, 1109, 1112

a monument to hidebound
conservatism, 114

Arabic, 910

Aramaic, 166

Armenian, 166, 185, 186

Bougainvillian, 837

Carian, 181, 182, 232, 233

consonantal, 208, 218, 810,
811

Coptic, 184, 775, 776, 778, 780

Cyrillic, 115, 154, 1068, 1070,
1080

dual, 14

English, 825

Entlehnungs-, 150

Etruscan, 170, 171, 916

Georgian, 793

Gothic, 166, 224

Greek, 115, 167–171, 182, 187,
225, 226, 230–232, 234,
775–779, 781

Hebrew, 231, 497

history, 157
Korean, 807
Latin, 147, 151, 154, 171, 176, 182, 300, 305, 443, 445, 762, 999, 1068, 1070, 1077

linear, 231

Lycian, 233

manual, 1060

North Italic, 146

origins, 207, 217

Otomaung, 825, 826, 829, 831, 837, 840, 844

Phoenician, 146

phonemic, 580

proto-, 167, 182

Roman, 111, 115, 154, 155, 174, 177, 228, 650, 651, 832, 844, 908

Romanian, 1075

Russian, 1071

Shavian, 905, 912, 914, 915

Ur-, 170

Venetic, 172, 186

vowelled, 208

alphabetic, 120

Altaic, 209

Amharic, 373, 392

Amiri (typeface), 969

amulet, 806

analogy, 742-744

Anatolian, 223, 226, 230, 232, 234, 928, 929, 932, 939

*Andika!*, 967-971, 973, 974, 981-983

ANRT, 439, 444-446, 452, 457

ants, 566, 569

apostrophe, 14, 28-30, 61, 269, 276, 290, 293, 719, 720, 725-727

special, 490

Apple, 441, 442

Arabic, 14, 35, 36, 52, 54, 60, 111, 112, 114, 116, 117, 159, 173, 203-207, 209-212, 217, 223, 265, 267, 350, 373, 377, 392, 394, 398, 410,

476, 478, 479, 497, 498, 530, 564, 568, 580, 622, 625, 760, 810, 835, 905, 907-910, 912, 913, 919, 963-972, 977, 978, 980-983, 986, 1044, 1083-1086, 1088-1094, 1097-1100, 1107

classical, 1098

Quranic, 217

Arabism, 497

Aramaic, 59-61, 76, 115, 164, 166, 178, 179, 181, 206-209, 211, 495, 787-794, 797, 799, 912, 1113, 1114

arbitrariness, 742

archaeology, 144, 146, 179, 225, 523, 544, 788, 791, 873, 874, 929, 957, 1098

*are you? you are*, 311

Arial (typeface), 420, 913

Ariekan, 283, 310-312

Armazian, 792-794, 797

Armenian, 155, 166, 182, 184-186, 373, 392, 789, 810

Arnold Böcklin (typeface), 398, 399

ARPA, 440

Art, 561

artificial intelligence, 96

artificial language learning, 215

ASCII, 342-345, 423, 440, 441, 444, 504

ASL, 1040, 1047-1049

ASLphabet, 1049

asomtavruli, 791

association, 744

Assyrian, 202, 789, 906, 1112, 1113

asterisk, 251, 254, 275, 717, 718, 720, 726, 731, 863

ateji, 295, 307-309, 637

Athapaskan, 116

attitudinal factor, 781

audibility, 86, 87, 96

Austroasiatic, 115
Austronesian, 111, 829

awareness, 84, 99

Ayka (typeface), 430

Azeri, 111

Aztec, 810, 812, 816, 817, 820

Aśoka, 178, 179

## B

B B B, 323

BabelStone Naxi (typeface), 995

Bajuni, 972, 978

Bakery (typeface), 397

Bamum, 174, 827, 828

Bantu, 111, 115

Bastian Balthazar Bux, 284, 285, 320–324

Bauhaus, 316

BCCWJ, 586–588, 602, 603, 636

Beatles, 11

Behistun, 160–164

Berber, 204, 205, 210, 212, 217, 1097

Kabyle, 210, 212, 217

biliteracy, 113

Blackletter (typeface), 303, 373, 378

328

boldface, 203, 205, 211, 212, 216, 301, 319, 324, 325, 347, 348, 374, 832, 865, 1057, 1092

Book Antiqua (typeface), 914

Bookman (typeface), 397

Bosnian, 373

Bougainville, 825, 826, 829, 830, 832, 833, 835–838, 840, 844, 845

brackets, 13

braille, 631

Bronze Age, 945–947, 960

brute-force attack, 927, 931–933, 941

Brāhmī, 178–180, 208, 209, 217

Bulgarian, 165, 373, 392, 910

## C

Cafe (typeface), 397

Cambria (typeface), 913, 914

Canapés<sup>S.O.S.</sup>, 309

Carian, 181, 182, 212, 226, 228, 232, 233, 235

Catalan, 373, 392

Catholicism, 74, 721, 724, 730, 837

Caucasian, 115, 166, 182, 787, 799

Northwest, 115

cave painting, 1110

Celtiberian, 182

Celtic, 184

cenemic, 48, 53, 625

CETI, 516, 519, 523

chaos hypothesis, 181, 226

character component, 278, 279, 648–651, 657, 660, 664, 668, 669, 675–677

Charlie Gordon, 276–278

chat communication, 20

chatbot, 344

chereme, 1048

Cherokee, 111, 112, 114, 173, 174, 181, 184, 185, 530, 626, 826

Chi-square test, 746

Chihiro, 1117, 1118

Chimwiini, 210, 211, 969

Chinese, 14, 25, 26, 35, 37–39, 41, 48, 49, 51–57, 63, 64, 66–68, 70–72, 75, 76, 108, 109, 112–115, 118, 128, 134, 159, 175, 176, 201, 209, 216, 223, 230, 300, 373, 393, 459, 530, 580, 582, 636, 645–651, 654, 657–659, 664, 668, 675–677, 683–685, 687, 711, 712, 781, 805, 810, 818, 823, 851, 906, 966, 986–992, 994, 998, 1000, 1001, 1109, 1116, 1117

Middle, 71, 72
Old, 48, 55, 56, 216

chirography, 441, 446

CIA, 338, 339

cipher, 182, 624, 625, 633, 832,
844

script, 832

clicks, 115

clitic, 28

Cloister Black (typeface), 303

coda, 203, 216, 629, 645, 646, 654,
664-668, 671-673, 677,
757

*Codex Mendoza*, 812

codification, 4

Codman's Paradox, 1030

cognition, 84, 86, 89, 94, 103,
104, 106-108, 116-119,
132, 134, 137, 223, 225,
228-230, 235, 261, 265,
341, 362, 366, 404, 429,
442, 491, 523, 528, 546,
565, 585, 615, 732, 742-
744, 775, 776, 778, 806,
883, 886, 940, 985, 986,
1000, 1010, 1041-1043,
1045, 1049, 1083, 1088,
1089

coherent discrimination, 907

coherent thought, 12

Comic Sans (typeface), 405

comics, 16

comma, 6, 12, 15, 17, 21, 29, 126,
321, 530, 714, 717, 719,
720, 722, 723, 726, 727,
729, 730, 732, 874, 967,
1056, 1075, 1084-1086,
1089-1091, 1093

community of practice, 776

Comoro Islands, 967, 971

complete thought, 12

componentness, 712

conceptual, 561, 742

conceptualism, 9

concrete, 561, 565, 567

conditions of well-formedness, 8

congruence, 744

connector, 1084, 1088-1090,
1092, 1093

connotation, 72-75, 137, 276, 303,
362, 365, 373, 384, 390,
402, 407, 411, 418, 422,
432, 491, 501, 521, 530,
535, 538, 596, 605, 740,
742, 906, 1085, 1086,
1088, 1090, 1092, 1104

consonant, 61, 105, 113, 159, 162,
163, 177, 205-215, 218,
228, 622, 629, 631, 718,
751, 755, 758, 759, 763-
765, 769, 777, 779, 807,
810, 811, 820-822, 829,
910-912, 916, 935, 939,
999, 1071, 1077

affixal, 214

ambisyllabic long, 629

coda, 216, 664

conjunct, 180

double, 758

final, 232

full, 207

geminate, 213

high-frequency, 744

initial, 177, 482, 746

intervocalic, 33

labial, 105

low-frequency, 744

middle, 217

nasalized, 998, 999

null, 209

palatalised, 1071

pharyngeal, 491

prenasalised, 977

retroflex, 999

romance, 759, 764

root, 217

subscript, 819

uvular, 998

vocalized, 810

voiced, 998, 999

voiceless obstruent, 629
weak, 808, 916
content, 742
contingency coefficient, 746
continuum, 95
Cooper Black (typeface), 399
copresence, 86, 87, 96
Coptic, 182, 184, 775–781
Coreguaje, 116
correlation, 744
correspondence, 744
cotemporality, 86, 87, 96
Courier New (typeface), 905, 912, 914
COVID-19, 223, 501, 506, 508, 511, 639, 825, 826, 829, 837, 855, 1026
*Cratylos*, 1115
Cree, 218
critical period, 107
Croatian, 373, 714, 721, 724, 726
cryptanalysis, 523, 931, 932
Cthulhu, 534
cultural heritage, 964
cuneiform, 57, 59, 114, 116, 117, 160–164, 167, 178, 207, 444, 818, 821, 851, 1109–1111, 1113, 1114
Cyrillic, 114, 115, 154, 155, 173, 182, 223, 267, 305, 373, 442, 810, 823, 905, 908–910, 912, 915, 920, 971, 1067–1073, 1075–1077, 1079, 1080
Czech, 305, 373, 539, 724, 725, 732
Czechoslovak, 93

D

dada, 244, 334, 856
Dakota, 985
Danielian, 166
Danish, 93, 111, 150, 325, 373, 714, 724, 725, 1022

dash, 251, 254, 269, 277, 293, 299, 517, 728, 732, 1052, 1086, 1090, 1091
double, 1086, 1089–1091
em-dash, 325
en-dash, 726
deafness, 1042
decimal point, 15
decipherment, 85, 169, 181, 445, 514, 515, 522–525, 528, 530, 534, 535, 541, 544, 545, 791, 812, 821, 848, 852, 858, 868, 869, 878, 879, 883, 888, 928–933, 938, 940, 941, 945–947, 1043, 1044, 1050, 1085, 1097, 1105–1107, 1109
deep, 756
definition of writing, 119 (deleted), 342
deliteracy, 964
Demotic, 182, 184, 775–781
Devanagari, 105, 109, 112, 223, 373, 819, 821
Dhivehi, 108, 117
diachronic, 760
diadocal movement, 1030
dichotomy, 92
differentiation, 821
digital arena, 96
era, 87
media, 88
digitisation full, 966
digraph, 115, 768
DIN (typeface), 368, 378, 388
distinctiveness, 907
Dongba (typeface), 987
dongba, 821, 985–1003
<dī>, 63
dual alphabet, 14
Duisburg-Marxloh, 361, 373, 393, 397–403, 410, 415
Dur-Sharrukin, 1112, 1113
Dutch, 111, 138, 295, 318, 344, 373, 724, 725, 727, 730, 758

E

Earth chauvinism, 533

École Estienne, 304

economic theory, 562

economists, 562

efficiency, 907

Egyptian, 53, 57, 155, 207, 208, 218, 224, 496, 775-777, 779, 781, 807, 809, 810, 817, 818, 820, 821, 851, 877, 907, 935, 966, 1001, 1097, 1098, 1100, 1106

Electroharmonix (typeface), 110

electronic era, 87

ELIZA, 343

ellipsis, 16

אלקים lqym, 490

Embassytown, 283, 310, 312

emblem, 480, 809, 810, 812-814, 816-820, 822, 885

EMERGE, 565

Emergence, 566

eminent sign, 242

emoji, 348, 419, 424, 432, 442, 446, 459, 501-511

Emojipedia, 503, 506

emoticon, 419, 422-425, 428, 429, 432, 435, 502, 823

Ø (empty set), 350

end punctuation mark, 15

English, 1-3, 5-7, 11, 13, 14, 16-18, 20, 21, 26, 29, 30, 33-35, 39, 40, 50-54, 56, 59, 60, 62, 76, 104, 105, 109-113, 116, 118, 126, 130, 131, 134, 138, 173, 184, 204, 207, 212-216, 250, 252, 253, 275, 276, 278, 280-282, 288, 290, 291, 295, 297-299, 304, 308, 310-312, 322, 325, 342,

344, 373, 375, 377, 392, 394, 427, 441, 503, 530, 540, 544, 546, 580, 592, 622, 624-626, 628, 633, 634, 647, 648, 653, 659, 664, 714, 724, 726-728, 730, 741, 755, 757, 758, 825, 832, 837, 840, 860, 862, 876, 890, 905, 907-912, 914-916, 965, 968, 969, 972, 975, 981, 982, 987-989, 994, 1001, 1033, 1040, 1048, 1068, 1075, 1084, 1089, 1098, 1117

Middle, 916

Old, 739-742, 745, 746, 748, 750, 751

Enlightenment, 713, 715, 716, 725, 726, 728-732

equality, 744

equivalence, 744

error, 6

Ersu Shaba, 985

Estonian, 373, 392

Ethiopic, 212

ETI, 514-516, 521, 523-527, 530-532, 534, 535, 538, 539, 542-544, 546, 547

Etruscan, 155, 156, 170-172, 184, 203, 226, 446, 459, 461, 472, 473, 916

exclamation mark, 5

exotype, 109

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, 313, 335, 339, 345

eye dialect, 274-276, 278-282, 491, 494

F

Face-to-Face-SL, 1054-1060

Facebook, 442, 491, 501, 502, 505, 507, 837

facilitation, 908

falsification, 858
Feesum Endjinn, 279

Fidel, 212

filler, 28

finite verb, 11

Finnish, 52, 373, 392, 622, 724, 905, 908–912, 914, 915, 921

Flowers for Algernon, 276

Flying Letters, 249

foot

binarity, 32

graphematic, 30

foreign accent, 107, 112

form, 742

fortissimo, 62

4KCW, 579, 584–588, 594, 597, 599–616

Fraktur (typeface), 303

frame of reference, 888, 1013, 1015, 1027–1034

Franklin Gothic (typeface), 913

French, 53, 54, 60, 86, 111, 113, 116, 130, 138, 250, 261, 275–277, 279, 280, 283, 285–287, 289, 291, 293, 295, 297–301, 304, 307, 310, 312, 318, 320, 325, 337, 342, 344, 373, 392, 419, 422, 427, 439, 516, 517, 531, 627, 634, 714, 724, 758, 760, 1011, 1033, 1039, 1042–1049, 1053, 1084, 1089–1093

Québecois, 327

1000110, 342–344

full stop, 5

Futura Light (typeface), 316, 327

futurism, 244

Fuzzy Sets, 293, 312, 318, 338

fußpark, 145, 146, 148–151, 166, 183, 185, 186

G

γ-paragraph, 264, 266, 271–273, 321, 322, 328, 329

γ-word, 263, 264, 266–270, 272, 290, 302

Gabriola (typeface), 913

Ganzsatz, 7

GARBLE, 296

gematria, 149, 1113–1116

genericity, 1017–1019

Georgia (typeface), 913

Georgian, 166, 787, 789–793, 797

Old, 789, 791

German, 1–5, 7, 12, 13, 15–21, 26, 29, 30, 33–35, 40, 104, 105, 111, 126, 127, 130, 136, 138, 145, 146, 148, 149, 152, 173, 176, 183, 184, 211, 214, 242, 254, 275–277, 279–283, 285, 288, 289, 295, 297, 299, 300, 303, 310–312, 318, 319, 322, 325, 344, 366, 373, 377, 378, 392–395, 402, 410, 495, 501, 505, 622, 627, 628, 632, 633, 714, 724, 726–728, 730, 741, 758, 794, 854, 916, 965, 1022, 1040, 1068

GestualScript, 1011, 1016, 1021, 1026, 1027, 1034

gesture, 1, 2, 84, 251, 254, 291, 309, 417, 520, 537, 563, 568, 650, 652, 654, 659, 660, 677, 828, 1009, 1010, 1016–1019, 1021, 1025–1027, 1032, 1034, 1035, 1040, 1042, 1047

GitHub, 484, 1075, 1078, 1079

Glagolica, 167

Glagolitic, 155, 165, 182, 187

globalization, 87, 307

glottography, 47, 53, 54, 625, 790

Google
Meet, 97, 508–510

Translate, 96

GORILA, 930–932, 939, 946, 948, 951

GPL3 license, 967

Graeco-Egyptian, 779

grammar, 9, 19, 88, 90, 103, 118, 120, 178–180, 201, 202, 209, 214, 217, 265, 432, 582, 626, 627, 645, 646, 649, 650, 660, 713–733, 735, 761–763, 1045, 1046, 1087, 1089

generative, 34

grammatologist, 155, 173

grammatography, 3

grammatology, 3

graphematic

foot, 31, 32

hierarchy, 31

solution space, 627, 633

surface, 29

syllable, 31, 32

word, 33

definition, 26, 28, 29

grapheme, 14, 26–28, 40, 50, 51, 92–94, 129, 134, 135, 137, 146, 147, 150, 151, 153, 156, 226, 229, 232, 233, 263–265, 268–271, 273, 274, 300, 302, 307, 328, 334, 344, 352, 428, 457, 491, 685, 739, 740, 742, 746–749, 751, 755–759, 761–765, 768, 769, 777, 778, 809–811, 821, 822, 881, 916, 990, 993, 1010–1012, 1071, 1075–1078, 1117

clitic, 28

filler, 28

grapheme-phoneme correspondence, 145, 160, 182, 755–758, 760, 761, 765, 767, 769, 770, 1071

graphemic

complexity, 756

quarantine, 496

reduplication, 235

graphemics, 3, 10, 31, 32, 41, 138, 139, 225, 262, 264, 489, 622, 627–629, 639

Egyptian, 496

German, 627

Hebrew, 497

Italian, 756

Japanese, 632

semio-, 751

structured, 632, 639

suprasegmental, 30, 39, 41

graphetics, 127, 129, 137, 138, 247, 262, 266, 361, 363–365, 625

grapho-phonological inconsistency, 755

grapholinguistics, 1–4, 13, 20, 53, 126–132, 134–139, 515, 622, 625, 1009

graphonomy, 3

graphophoneme, 92

graphotactics, 36, 37, 40, 41, 134

Great Black Bull, 906

Greek, 63, 115, 138, 146, 154, 155, 165–173, 179–182, 184, 187, 207, 208, 212, 213, 217, 223, 225, 226, 228, 230–235, 267, 288, 289, 305, 373, 439, 441, 445, 456, 461–463, 469, 470, 480, 482, 489, 529, 561, 717, 719, 724, 742, 760, 775–781, 789, 790, 792, 793, 810, 822, 905, 908–912, 914–916, 922, 928, 930, 946, 947, 966, 1109, 1113

Archaic, 459, 469

Classical, 213

Koinê, 778

Gutenberg, 455
Project, 252

## H

Haghia Triada, 928, 931, 951, 953, 954

Hairdresser (typeface), 397

Haitian Creole, 111

Hamburg Notation System, 1011, 1014–1016, 1047–1049

handwriting, 109, 112, 326, 373, 381, 384, 393, 441, 442, 446, 624, 649, 652, 660, 674, 731, 732, 851, 853

hangul, 117, 159–161, 166, 184, 373, 392–394, 410, 911, 985, 1109

hanzi, 108, 109, 112, 113, 115, 117, 373, 392–394, 410, 683–687, 711, 712

Harlow (typeface), 398

Hausa, 971

Hausdorff distance, 905, 909

Hayat (soap), 568, 569, 576

hearing, 85

Hebrew, 60, 118, 203–205, 207, 211–215, 217, 223, 226, 231, 267, 373, 459, 461, 474, 475, 489–497, 499, 760, 780, 788, 789, 905, 907–909, 911, 914–916, 923, 929, 1081, 1109, 1112–1115

Biblical, 213, 493

Modern, 491, 493, 495–497, 499

hentai kanbun, 54

hentaigana, 64, 67, 68

heterogenization, 908

heterography, 52, 53, 59–62, 76, 759, 761, 762, 822

hieroglyphic, 807, 809, 817, 818, 820, 877, 881, 966, 1100

Higurashi, 1116, 1117

Hindi, 105, 373, 530, 622, 625, 1081

hiragana, 35–37, 40, 41, 51, 57, 58, 70, 176, 275, 278, 580–584, 623, 631, 633, 634, 639, 677

“holy” letters, 490

homogenization, 908

homography, 52, 344, 492, 758, 761, 762

Horizon (typeface), 398

Hungarian, 373, 392, 539, 716, 724, 726

hyphenation, 263, 266, 270, 293

nonstandard, 293, 313

without hyphen, 294

## I

Iberian, 146, 178, 182, 208, 217, 223, 226, 461, 787–789, 791, 793

Icelandic, 305, 373, 724

iconicity, 740, 742–745, 817, 829, 906, 917, 1014, 1015, 1040, 1060

identity, 744, 755

ideography, 49

ideophone, 740

Igbo, 373, 392

illiteracy, 106

Impact (typeface), 913

inconsistency, 755

indentation, 270, 861

☞, 421

☞, 726

index

phonetic, 998

radical, 992, 998

semantic, 985, 987, 992, 997, 1000, 1001

India, 112

individuality, 86

Indo-European, 115

Indonesian, 111, 373, 392
inertia, 908

infinitive construction, 11

initial

grapheme, 742

sound, 742

inscribability, 1017

Instagram, 502, 505

instant messaging, 96

interdependence, 84

interjection, 32, 297, 327, 819

interlinear annotation, 264, 266, 267, 271, 307, 309, 310

Internet communication, 16

interrobang, 428, 436

interword spacing, 38

inverted exclamation mark, 17

inverted question mark, 17

iotification, 1076

IPA, 276, 439, 628, 909–911, 987, 989, 998

Iranian Love Story, 346

Iranian

Middle, 59, 61, 62, 76, 792, 793

Irish, 305, 373, 392, 447, 721, 724, 859, 860, 890

ironieteken, 437

irregular data, 9

ISESCO, 968

Islam, 116

ISO/IEC 9995-8, 345, 346

isomorphism, 742, 743

Italian, 73, 104, 105, 111, 130, 138, 287, 288, 295, 298, 299, 318, 325, 342, 344, 373, 392, 446, 472, 632, 714, 724, 727, 728, 730, 755–763, 765–770, 1033, 1044, 1076, 1090

palatal lateral, 769

italics, 252, 256, 290, 292, 297, 299, 316, 317, 325, 374, 523, 580, 582, 585, 677, 1057, 1091

J

Janson (typeface), 340

Japanese, 25, 26, 35–37, 40, 41, 49, 51, 52, 54, 57–59, 63–76, 109, 110, 115, 130, 136, 174–177, 218, 271, 275–278, 288, 295, 297, 307, 308, 324, 325, 350, 373, 393, 502, 503, 579–583, 585–587, 589, 592, 598, 600, 607, 608, 610, 613–616, 623, 629–636, 638, 639, 649, 677, 809, 820, 821, 823, 986, 1022, 1109, 1116–1118

Old, 57, 65–72

Javanese, 223

JavaScript, 950

jinās, 1097, 1099–1107

<Jš>, <Jš>, 63

JSON, 950

Judaism, 1115

Judeo-Arabic, 205, 206, 497

Judeo-Spanish, 211

K

Kabbalah, 1109, 1113–1116, 1119

Kanembu, 210

kanji, 35–37, 41, 110, 175, 176, 271, 275, 278, 279, 307, 308, 579–585, 588, 590, 592, 598, 602, 608, 612–616, 623, 631–639, 1117–1119

Kanuri, 210

Karbardian, 115

katakana, 35, 36, 41, 51, 54, 57, 70, 110, 176, 278, 297, 580–584, 623, 631, 633, 634, 637, 639

Kayah Li, 826

誌 (keep reckerds), 278

keneme, 1048

key, 564
keyboard, 422, 429, 432, 484,
968-971, 987, 988, 1022-
1026

Arabic, 968, 969

art, 423

English, 968, 969

layout, 969

mapping, 969

virtual, 987, 1014, 1024

Kharoṣṭhī, 208, 209, 217

Khorsabad, 1112

kissing, 565

Klingon, 912

knowledge

industry, 983

of language, 8

Korean, 54, 113, 115, 117, 130, 138,
159, 175, 285, 373, 393,
622, 807, 810, 811, 819,
822, 905, 908, 909, 911,
912, 914, 924, 925

kungana, 66-68, 175

Kurdish, 373, 971

Кхопин, Фрédéрик, 1077

L

L₁, L₂, 103, 105, 107, 112–114, 116,
117, 119

La horde du contrevent, 344, 350

<figure><img src="image_226.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_227.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_228.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_229.png" /></figure>

348

λ-calculus, 950

language, 8, 561, 568, 569

acquisition device, 107

contact, 230, 929

excentric, 289

instinct, 107, 119

primary, 103–107, 113, 114,
117, 118, 120, 121

system, 9

use, 8

Las Vegas, 408

Lascaux cave, 906

*Le petit sauvage*, 291, 292, 303, 315,
326, 330, 350, 351

left middle frontal gyrus, 113

legibility, 264, 379, 384, 390, 835,
956, 1012

*Les Furtifs*, 304

*Les identités meurtrières*, 1083, 1084,
1091

letter, 13, 89

uppercase, 11–14, 16, 19, 21,
272, 911

lemmatic unit, 1040

lexeme, 742

lexical foreignism, 497

lexicon, 9

*Limba Noastră*, 1069

Linear A (typeface), 933

Linear A, 544, 927–941, 945–950,
952–954, 956–960

Linear B, 53, 167, 218, 811, 927–
931, 947, 956, 960

linguistic

determinism, 261

factor, 217, 756, 781

realism, 9

relativism, 261

sign, 742

theory, 120

linguistics

non-derivational, 621, 622,
626, 629, 639, 741

structural, 1, 6, 7, 20, 89, 94,
103, 104, 106, 107, 120,
127, 129, 130, 138, 177,
224, 265, 324, 372, 496,
645, 742, 744, 959

lip-reading, 1042, 1044

list mode, 16

literacy, 89, 104–106, 108, 112,
120, 137, 146, 149, 155,
158, 159, 174, 178, 179,
182, 183, 185, 205, 210,
225, 227, 231, 232, 375,
497, 713, 730–732, 761,
778, 779, 790, 825–827,
829, 831, 837, 844, 890,
959, 967, 971, 986, 1043,
1044, 1079

bi-, 113

mono-, 105

literalness, 569

loanword, 32, 35, 54, 56, 64, 75,
232, 497, 498, 629, 634,
777, 780

local aliens, 543, 545

LOGIN, 440

LOGLAN, 518

logography, 47–52, 55, 60, 138,
224, 230, 275, 621–626,
631, 633, 635–639, 806,
821, 843, 844, 850, 851,
881, 905, 906, 985, 990,
997, 1000, 1001, 1009,
1010, 1012, 1015, 1018,
1020, 1021

longing look, 347

*Lost Memory*, 274

♥, 507

love point, 427

lowercase letter, 11

Luwian, 59, 230, 928–930, 932,
936, 937, 939

Lycian, 228, 233, 459, 461, 480–
482, 930

Lydian, 228, 233, 461

M

Macedonian, 910

MagDa, 283

magic, 149, 228, 304, 566, 569,
741, 806, 823, 874, 875,
880, 884, 885, 889, 1101,
1109–1114, 1116–1119,
1121

Malay, 111, 209, 373, 392, 971

man'yōgana, 57, 176

Manchu, 115

Manchurian, 209

Mandinka, 210

manga, 1120

manicule, 421

mapping, 744

principle, 781

mapping principle, 781

Marathi, 105

mark

acclamation, 427

authority, 427

certitude, 427

doubt, 427

elrey, 437

exclamation, 1, 5, 6, 12, 15–17,
21, 29, 296, 346, 350, 352,
419, 427, 428, 719, 720,
724–727, 730

friendly period, 437

irony, 427, 428, 436

paragraph, 720, 726, 727, 731

question, 1, 5, 6, 12, 15–17,
21, 29, 346, 352, 418, 419,
427, 428, 432, 631, 719,
720, 722, 723, 725–727,
729, 732, 951, 1086, 1090,
1091

quotation, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21,
29, 418, 419, 427, 432,
717, 726–728, 732, 1084–
1086, 1090–1092

sarcmark, 437

sarkmark, 427

section, 726

snark, 437

whisper, 437

markedness, 134, 664, 755, 756,
764, 765, 768–770

Maštoc', 166

matres lectionis, 170, 203, 205,
207–209, 212, 217, 493,
779, 808

matter, 561

Mayan, 53, 57, 59, 218, 444, 541,
810, 818, 1001

memory, 569

Menzerath's law, 649, 651, 654,
655, 675–677
Merkspruch, 168, 170, 172, 178, 185

Meroitic, 208, 217, 218

meronymy, 263

Mesopotamian, 207, 787, 797, 1114

μεταχαρακτηρισμός (chaos hypothesis), 181

metaphor, 130, 175, 227, 243, 291, 294, 310, 311, 316, 335, 561–568, 570, 809, 822, 888, 1040, 1058, 1099, 1103–1107, 1109, 1112

chemical, 566

dead, 563

economic, 562

for totality, 1112

synesthetic, 565

METI, 516, 529, 531, 534

metonymy, 243, 809

Microsoft, 442, 508, 909, 938, 940

Middle Ages, 87, 91, 183, 715

Middle Iranian languages, 59

mimography, 1010

Minoan, 927–930, 938, 940, 941, 945, 946, 959, 960

minority languages, 116, 119

mise à nu, 334

Miyazaki, 1117

modern era, 87

Modular Theory of Writing Systems, 10, 13, 622–629, 632, 633, 635, 638, 639

modularity, 1017, 1021

Moldovan, 1067–1072, 1074, 1076, 1077, 1079, 1080

Mombasa, 970

Mongolian, 209, 265, 267

Mongolic, 115

*Monogatari*, 1118

monoliteracy, 105

mora, 807

morpheme, 109

morphography, 48–55, 76, 138, 585, 635, 637, 638, 807, 822

morphological constancy, 51

morphonography, 54

Moso, 986, 998, 999

Music school (typeface), 397

mute melody, 564

Mwana Kupona, 975

Mycenaean, 927, 928, 947

N

N'ko, 826

Na, 986

Naasioi, 825, 826, 829, 831, 832, 834–845

Nabataean, 206, 456, 459, 461, 476, 478–480

NASA, 520, 528, 533, 543

national identity, 770

native script effect, 103, 104, 114, 116, 117, 119, 120

Naturalness Theory, 133–136

Naxi, 985–989, 991, 992, 998, 999, 1001

negative transfer, 107, 113

Nepali, 105, 373, 392

neuropsychology, 94

Nineveh, 1113

noise, 86, 294, 675, 828

nominalism, 9

Non-arbitrariness, 742

Norwegian, 111, 136, 138, 373, 392

Noto (typeface), 447, 479

nucleus, 645, 646, 659–667, 670, 671, 677

*Nudisme*, 333

O

obfuscation, 313, 335–337, 340–342, 344–346, 352

Одержимый, 300

Ogam, 146, 155, 182, 187

*Old Testament*, 298

Ω, 445

ongana, 66, 67, 175

onomatopoeia, 740, 744
onset, 33, 159, 203, 208, 615, 645,
646, 654, 659, 660, 662-
671, 673, 677, 739, 746,
749, 751, 779

maximization, 33

ontology, 259, 262–265, 274, 352,
687, 712

Oolong, 109

OpenType, 459, 1019, 1021, 1024

Optimality Theory, 13, 118

Orphée, 333

orthographic

change, 964

depth, 51, 53, 755–757, 807,
822

policy, 120

orthography, 2–4, 10, 11, 13, 16,
20, 26, 51, 58, 61, 65,
69, 77, 104, 113, 115, 116,
120, 138, 139, 159, 162–
164, 177, 183, 207, 216,
232, 489, 490, 492, 493,
495, 497, 581, 628, 634,
714, 718, 720, 722, 725–
728, 730–732, 756, 757,
793, 827, 906–908, 910–
912, 914, 915, 929, 967,
978, 989, 998, 1061, 1080

conventional, 628, 633

design, 116

German, 4

reform, 4

German 1996, 4

systematic, 10, 622, 627–629,
633–635, 639

אוסלו (Oslo), 491

Oto-Manguean language, 116

Otomaung (typeface), 845

Otomaung, 825, 826, 829, 831,
832, 834–841, 843–845

ownership, 564

P

Pahawh Hmong, 174, 807, 810

Papuan, 830

Parnavaz, 790

Pashto, 971

'pataphysique, 290

Pate, 977

Pearson's Chi-square, 746

percontativus, 427, 436

Persian, 209, 210, 212, 373, 463,
480, 788, 968, 971

Middle, 60, 792

Old, 160–164, 167, 177, 178,
788

'Phags pa, 117

Phaistos Disc, 523, 525

phenomenology, 241, 242

pheromone, 566

Phoenician, 146, 167–171, 184,
203–205, 207, 208, 213,
225, 226, 230, 232, 233,
456, 459, 461, 463–466,
474–476, 479, 911, 912,
915, 916, 1113

phonaestheme, 740, 744

phoneme, 27, 28, 49, 53, 61, 62,
92–94, 113, 120, 127, 137,
149, 150, 171, 179, 208,
209, 212, 227, 231, 234,
274, 302, 495, 497, 651,
656, 740, 742, 744, 755–
759, 761–765, 767, 768,
777, 810, 821, 830, 831,
908–912, 915, 916, 919,
920, 922, 923, 932, 1000,
1010, 1012, 1014, 1048,
1111

phoneme-grapheme correspondence, 757, 758, 1070

phonemic

opposition, 764

system, 84

phonetics, 127, 208, 660, 714, 1010

phonocentrism, 92

phonography, 47

phonological

theory, 120
word, 33
phonotactical constraint, 33
PHP, 1067, 1072, 1075, 1079, 1080
phraseography, 808
Phrygian, 170, 228, 233
physical, 561, 563
*pianissimo*, 62
pictography, 348
pinyin, 108, 109, 987, 989, 991, 998, 999, 1001
Pioneer, 10, 520, 521, 523, 524, 526, 533, 534
Pioneer Club, Las Vegas, 408
pleremic, 48, 53, 625
Polish, 305, 373, 518, 634, 724, 725, 727, 728, 730, 731
Portuguese, 63, 73, 74, 111, 288, 295, 305, 328, 373, 716, 721, 724, 760
positive transfer, 107, 113
possession, 564
PostScript, 441
pragmatics, 12
Prakrit, 179, 209
pre-literate, 89
pre-recorded video, 98
Pretorian (typeface), 398
primary language, 106
prime numbers, 331, 332, 518, 540
printing revolution, 91
private correspondence, 20
productivity of components, 686
prominence, 652, 653, 655, 656, 659, 662, 664–666, 668, 670, 672, 674, 825
properties, 744
prosody, 6, 12, 31, 39, 41, 216, 309, 629, 645, 647, 651–654, 656, 660, 662, 672, 718, 726, 728
Protestantism, 721, 724, 729, 730
pseudo-archaeology, 298
pseudologography, 50
psycholinguistics, 4, 8, 36, 39, 84, 94, 126, 129, 131, 135–137,

223, 235, 579, 585, 586, 589, 615, 645, 650, 674, 677
punctuation, 1, 4, 7, 10, 13–18, 21, 28, 29, 40, 216, 245, 254, 264–266, 270, 322, 323, 344, 346, 350, 417–419, 421, 422, 424, 425, 427–432, 436, 437, 624, 633, 713–732, 1055, 1056, 1061, 1083–1092, 1094, 1095
emotional, 418, 427
Punic, 202, 204, 205, 461, 466, 467
Python, 739, 745, 746, 909, 927, 928, 931, 932, 940

## Q

*Qasida Hamziyya*, 972, 980
*Qasida ya Burda*, 980
quantal theory, 765
question mark, 5
quotation marks, 13
*Qur’ān*, 116

## R

radical harmony, 636
readability, 390, 457, 781, 1016–1019, 1059, 1061, 1062, 1085
rebus, 55, 174, 177, 216, 598, 637, 810, 812–814, 816, 817, 820, 829
record, 95
recorded audio, 96
REDRUM, 286–289
俛 (reeding), 278
referential meaning, 742
referentiality, 255, 740, 745
reform, 4
Renaissance, 91, 92, 713–716, 719, 729, 731, 732
resemblance, 744

Restaurant (typeface), 397

retransliteration, 1077

reviewability, 86, 87, 96

revisability, 86, 87, 96

Revue (typeface), 398, 401

rhyme, 32, 757, 966, 974, 980, 983, 1000

right inferior frontal gyrus, 113

ritual, 169, 172, 562–564, 570, 828, 868, 889, 930, 999, 1110, 1111, 1116

Roberta (typeface), 401

Robofont, 1021

Roman, 14, 105, 109, 114

alphabet, 35, 111, 115, 154, 155, 174, 177, 228, 650, 651, 832, 844, 908, 915

Romance, 760

Romanian, 111, 288–290, 305, 373, 726, 760, 1067–1080

Romanization, 108, 119

rongorongo, 445, 514, 544, 545, 847–863, 865–867, 869–873, 875–891, 893, 895, 897, 899, 901, 903, 986

root, 88, 202, 203, 214–217, 296, 564, 568, 761, 806, 813, 1099, 1105, 1118

Semitic, 202, 214, 229, 490, 822, 929, 1106

Rotokas, 830, 831

round-tripping, 971

Russian, 93, 115, 130, 261, 300, 373, 714, 724, 725, 727, 728, 730, 910, 1068, 1070–1072, 1074, 1075, 1077, 1079, 1080

*Ryōri monogatari*, 64

rōmaji, 35, 36, 41, 580, 581

S

S₁

conversion to S₂, 972

manuscripts, 968

partial representation, 977

spelling, 971

standardisation, 971

typing, 972

usage, 971

S₁, S₂, 103–105, 107–114, 116–119, 964–975, 977, 978, 981–983

S₂

replacement script, 964

standardisation, 967

sans-serif, 291, 303, 315, 316, 368, 374, 378, 379, 381, 384, 388, 393, 406, 409, 421, 909

Sanskrit, 56, 180, 209, 928, 986, 1045

Sayaboury, 828, 829

scarring pattern, 842

Schreckenslaut/schrei, 321

Schrifterfindungsparagraph, 160, 164, 178

Schriftlinguistik, 2–4, 126, 127

science fiction, 260, 296, 298, 317, 518, 521, 543, 547

script

adoption, 115

displacement, 964

invention, 117

invention by stimulus diffu-
sion, 114

mimicry, 109, 111

Scripture, 718, 790, 791

second-language acquisition, 103

segmental slot, 27

segmentation, 36, 39, 245, 282, 805, 820, 858, 995, 1084, 1089

Segoe Script (typeface), 914

SEI, 439, 442, 444–448, 452

self-organization, 567

self-referentiality, 241, 246, 248, 249, 253
semantic radical, 648, 649, 652-654

semantography, 49

semiographemics, 751

semiotic system, 135, 136, 363, 806, 1111

Semitic languages, 115

senmyō-gaki, 65

sensoriperceptual, 744

sentence, 1, 5-8, 10-12, 15, 17-21, 25, 34, 37, 39, 137, 214, 216, 262, 264, 265, 270, 271, 292, 296, 297, 302, 312, 316, 318, 321, 322, 324, 328, 329, 337, 338, 344, 346, 349, 350, 418, 419, 428, 429, 431, 432, 503, 539, 714, 717, 720, 722, 723, 726, 728-730, 744, 817, 835, 843, 986, 1040, 1061, 1075, 1083-1090, 1092-1095, 1100, 1101, 1103, 1106

closing mark, 5

lexical, 6

text, 6

sequentiality, 86, 87, 96

Sequoyah, 111, 114, 173, 174, 184

Serbian, 373, 910, 994, 1081

Serbo-Croatian, 539, 757, 1081

serif, 291, 315, 316, 368, 374, 381, 384, 386, 388, 393, 395, 406, 408, 410, 421, 459, 909

slab, 381, 384, 386, 393, 408

SETI, 515, 516, 518, 521, 532, 540-543

Shakespeare, 276, 280, 342, 1056

Chékspir, 279

Schäksbier, 279

Shaikspir, 279

shallow, 756

shaman, 184, 1110

Shavian, 912

Shinzwani, 967

Shuowen Jiezi, 685, 990, 1000

sight, 85

sign language, 1, 666, 677, 1009-1012, 1014-1019, 1021, 1022, 1024-1026, 1028, 1031-1035, 1039-1042, 1044-1051, 1053-1057, 1060-1062

signified, 742

signifier, 742

signography, 1010

SignWriting, 1011-1016, 1018, 1022, 1028, 1047, 1051-1057, 1059-1062

SIL, 969

SIL Scheherazade (typeface), 969

silence, 86, 337, 749, 868

silent emendation, 965

similarity, 742, 743

simultaneity, 86, 87, 95, 96, 321, 322

Sinhalese, 373, 392

sinograms, 49

Skype, 96, 97, 501, 508-510

Slovakian, 373, 726

Slovenian, 373, 714, 724, 725

SMELL ME, 565

Soap Coins, 562

Sogdian, 59, 60, 209, 210, 212

Songhay, 205

sound symbolism, 740

Spanish, 17, 21, 52, 111, 113, 116, 138, 211, 288, 295, 311, 312, 325, 373, 392, 714, 724, 725, 727, 730, 757, 760, 1044, 1081

Spanish Dancer, 310-312

Sparkie, 295-297

speculative fiction, 259-262, 274, 276, 295, 324, 352

spelling, 13

consistency, 755

process, 223, 229-234

reform, 756

subsystem, 495
variation, 489, 491, 497, 760

*Spirited away*, 1117

spoken language, 5

SSSsssIIIiiiiXXXxxx, 282

standard writing system, 20

standardization, 761

S₁, 971

S₂, 967

Star Trek, 912

Stempel Garamond (typeface),
316, 327

Stokoe Notation, 1048, 1049

Strict Layer Hypothesis, 31

stroke, 36, 374, 388, 474, 490, 647,
649–654, 663, 667, 673,
726, 821, 907, 915, 998,
1001, 1013, 1115

ballistic, 664–668, 670–673

complexity, 651, 676

group, 645, 646, 654–656,
659, 660, 663–667, 670–
677

interaction, 645, 656, 658,
659, 661, 663, 664, 668,
669, 677

order, 118

width, 447

subsyllabic constituent, 30

Sumerian, 53, 59, 114, 116, 201,
216–218, 541, 807, 818,
821, 906, 1111, 1116

cuneiform, 114, 116

😊, 506

Swahili, 111, 210, 211, 373, 392,
963, 964, 966–975, 977,
978, 980

Swedish, 111, 287, 289, 305, 373,
724, 725, 727, 1022

syllable, 109, 120

graphematic, 30, 32

synesthesia, 290, 565

conceptual, 565

syntax, 11

synthorganic, 308

systematicity, 10, 742, 743, 907

T

taboo, 311, 489, 490, 831, 880

Tahoma (typeface), 914

Tairauqitna, 285

Taiwan, 113

Talmud Project, 250

tamga, 806

Tamil, 373

Tango (typeface), 398

tapeworm, 340, 341

tattoo, 304, 806

Teams, 508

τέχνη, 228

Τέχνη γραμματική, 717, 733

teenager, 281, 494

TEI, 262

telepathy, 290, 302

telephone, 439

Tenochtitlan, 812

Text Art, 423

text

inversion, 289

mode, 16

text-clause, 6

textogram, 813, 814

texture, 250, 255, 256

Thaana, 108, 113, 114, 117

Thai, 41, 373, 392, 826

*The Demolished Man*, 290, 291, 302,
303, 309

*The Neverending Story*, 284, 285, 319,
320, 324

*The Two-Timer*, 281

*Theodicy*, 1112

theory of evolution, 740

three-letter-rule, 31

3KCW, 579, 584–593, 595–600,
602, 606–616

😊, 507

Tibetan, 54, 115, 223, 819, 994

Tibetan-Burman, 985

Tifinagh, 204

Tiger! Tiger!, 304

Times Roman (typeface), 441
Titania (typeface), 398

Tok Pisin, 832

toponym spellings, 69

Torah, 250, 1113–1115

totem, 806

transcription, 63, 65–67, 73, 74, 203, 209–211, 274–276, 279, 443, 455, 457, 461, 467, 472, 476, 478, 539, 590, 598, 600, 612–614, 637, 781, 793, 867, 930–932, 939, 948, 949, 956, 957, 963, 965, 966, 974, 975, 977, 978, 980, 981, 989, 998, 1000, 1001, 1009, 1010, 1014, 1015, 1017–1019, 1021–1024, 1034, 1035, 1048, 1049, 1070

close, 965

lossy, 966

transfer unit, 1040

translation, 2, 3, 7, 37, 38, 59, 61, 62, 66, 96, 148, 160, 161, 166, 175, 176, 232, 242, 252, 253, 259, 261, 272, 273, 275, 278, 280, 282, 297, 307, 327, 344, 362, 368, 371, 374, 378, 421, 425, 448, 478, 523, 529, 538, 580, 598, 716–718, 721, 726, 741, 790, 791, 837, 841, 850, 870, 880, 973, 975, 981, 982, 987, 989, 991, 994, 996, 1048, 1050, 1055, 1068, 1117

automatic, 297

machine, 39

mental, 877

transliteration, 108, 145, 203, 205, 206, 209, 211, 467, 474, 478, 649, 793, 948, 949, 951, 956, 964–966, 972, 973, 975, 977, 978, 981,

1067, 1070–1073, 1076–1079

automatic, 1067, 1075–1079, 1081

deceptive, 1107

phonetic, 956, 1107

problems with, 965

reliable, 949

transparency, 756, 757

graphematic, 632

orthographic, 755

semantic, 586

transposition, 858, 1040, 1057

Trebuchet MS (typeface), 914

trigraph, 115, 768

Tristram Shandy, 251, 252, 254, 255

TrueType, 987

truthbearer, 89

Tuareg, 205

Tucanoan, 116

Tungus languages, 115

Turkic, 115, 209

Turkish, 325, 373, 377, 392, 394, 397–399, 401, 402, 410, 971, 1044

Ottoman, 209

Twilight Zone, 298

2KCW, 579, 583, 584, 586, 588–590, 592, 597, 599, 600, 602, 611–615

TYPANNOT, 2, 1009–1035

typeface, 109, 242, 244, 247, 248, 250, 251, 253–255, 364, 373, 378, 379, 381, 383, 384, 386, 388, 393–395, 397–399, 401–403, 405–410, 421, 432, 455, 457, 459, 463, 465, 468, 469, 472, 473, 476, 478, 484, 486, 487, 1021

Algerian, 397

Amiri, 969

Arial, 420, 913

Arnold Böcklin, 398, 399

Ayka, 430
BabelStone Naxi, 995
Bakery, 397
Blackletter, 303, 373, 378
Book Antiqua, 914
Bookman, 397
Cafe, 397
Cambria, 913, 914
Cloister Black, 303
Comic Sans, 405
Cooper Black, 399
Courier New, 905, 912, 914
DIN, 368, 378, 388
Dongba, 987
Electroharmonix, 110
Fraktur, 303
Franklin Gothic, 913
Futura Light, 316, 327
Gabriola, 913
Georgia, 913
Hairdresser, 397
Harlow, 398
Horizon, 398
Impact, 913
Janson, 340
Linear A, 933
Music school, 397
Noto, 447, 479
Otomaung, 845
Pretorian, 398
Restaurant, 397
Revue, 398, 401
Roberta, 401
Segoe Script, 914
SIL Scheherazade, 969
Stemmpel Garamond, 316
Stempel Garamond, 327
Tahoma, 914
Tango, 398
Times Roman, 441
Titania, 398
Trebuchet MS, 914
Unfolded, 248
Verdana, 914
Victorian, 397

typo-graphic device, 348–352

typography, 26, 28, 40, 91, 241, 242, 244–255, 259, 263, 271, 272, 286, 314, 315, 335, 340, 350, 361–366, 368, 371, 372, 375, 383, 390, 393, 394, 396, 401, 402, 404, 409–411, 423–425, 440–442, 444–448, 459, 484, 624–626, 724, 729, 731, 832, 1009, 1011, 1014, 1017–1024, 1034, 1056, 1084, 1088, 1091
digital, 247
virtual, 247, 248, 251
typoji, 428

U

Ugaritic, 207
Ukrainian, 300, 305, 373, 392, 518, 910, 1070, 1074, 1079
undeciphered scripts
  Linear A, 928, 945, 947
  runes, 151
underspelling, 52
Unesco, 446, 985
Unfolded (typeface), 248
Unicode, 307, 330, 427, 439–448, 457, 461, 472, 503, 504, 508, 648, 668, 670, 731, 938, 956, 966, 968, 969, 987, 988, 990, 1000, 1014, 1019
Private Use Area, 969
universal hierarchy, 764
Universal Phonological Principle, 780
universal writing system, 262, 838
unobsessiveness, 576
upper limb, 1019, 1027–1029, 1031, 1033
uppercase letter, 11
Uralic, 930
Urdu, 970, 971, 1081
US Foreign Service Institute, 110
Utenzi

wa Ja'far, 974, 981, 982

wa Mkunumbi, 978

wa Mwana Kupona, 975

utterance, 12, 53, 252, 274, 281,
283, 303, 309, 311, 315,
324, 325, 342, 490, 506,
521, 888

Uyghur, 209

V

Vai, 174, 218, 826

Verdana (typeface), 914

Viber, 96

Victorian (typeface), 397

video chat, 97

Vietnamese, 115

viewword, 330

visibility, 86, 87, 91, 96, 362, 379,
386, 841

voice translation, 96

voice-guided navigation, 96

vowel, 32, 33, 40, 53, 60, 105, 115,
120, 159, 162–164, 168–
170, 177, 180, 202–218,
228, 229, 233, 482, 496,
622, 623, 629, 744, 758,
759, 768, 777, 779, 780,
809, 810, 819–822, 829,
831, 911, 912, 916, 935,
968, 969, 977, 1071, 1076,
1077

affixal, 203, 214

back, 208, 209, 493

closed central, 1071

diacritic, 821

front, 171, 493

harmony, 636, 659

indefinite, 809, 820

inherent, 105, 820

initial, 180, 213

isolated, 1076

length, 204, 210, 213, 634

long, 59, 206, 580, 808, 820,
910, 969, 972

minimal, 214

omission, 202

reduction, 653, 662

redundant, 163

root, 203, 214

short, 4, 168, 209, 910, 969,
971

single, 32

unstressed, 214

unwritten, 205, 214

value, 911

word-final, 209

Voyager 10, 260, 526, 534

W

Wadi el-Ḥôl, 207

weight

graphematic, 32

well-formedness constraint, 32

Western supremacy, 225

WhatsApp, 96, 502, 505, 506

Wikimoldia/Викимолдия, 1067,
1068, 1072–1075, 1078–
1081

word, 25, 742

analysis, 982

division at the end of lines, 4

graphematic, 25, 26, 28–36,
39–41

minimal, 31

morphological, 34

phonological, 31, 33

syntactic, 34, 37, 38

wordhood, 25

World Emoji Day, 503

writing system, 1, 3–5, 7, 9, 10,
13, 14, 18, 20, 21, 26, 27,
30, 31, 35, 38–41, 47–55,
57, 59, 61–63, 70, 76, 77,
83, 86, 89, 94, 99, 104–
106, 112, 113, 117–120,
125, 128, 132–136, 138,
139, 153, 154, 158, 159, 201, 202, 204, 206, 208, 210, 212, 213, 216–218, 223–225, 227, 228, 231, 234, 260, 263, 265, 272, 362, 371, 388, 392, 439, 440, 442, 444–448, 452, 460, 461, 472, 484, 486, 513, 514, 547, 585, 615, 621–629, 633–635, 637–639, 645, 657, 677, 755, 756, 763, 764, 775–781, 805–807, 809, 812, 822, 823, 832, 840, 876, 914, 927, 928, 938, 947, 959, 968, 985–987, 989, 999, 1000, 1035, 1046, 1048, 1050, 1057, 1070, 1077, 1078, 1113, 1116, 1119, 1121

abugida, 818

accustomed, 418

AE, 1107

Afroasiatic, 201, 202, 204, 217

alphabetic, 26, 27, 29, 30, 35, 61, 503, 775, 777, 781

ancient, 486, 821

Arabic, 476, 1097

Aramaic, 60, 1114

Chinese, 37, 38, 41, 48, 49, 51, 55–57, 75, 113, 128, 992, 1109

closed, 1109

common, 760

complex, 35

difficult, 111

Dongba, 992

donor, 76

early, 203, 460, 484, 985

Egyptian, 781

English, 5, 11, 35, 40, 50, 52, 624

established, 1072

existing, 55, 116, 155

exotic, 448

full-fledged, 55, 179

German, 5, 21, 35, 40, 628

ideographic, 985

individual, 132, 136

Italian, 759, 761, 763, 770

Japanese, 35, 37, 40, 49, 51, 58, 59, 67, 68, 70, 76, 579, 580, 621, 623, 629, 631–634, 638, 639, 1116

Korean, 113

Linear A, 932, 960

logo-syllabic, 946, 947

logographic, 48, 230, 635, 997

Mayan, 59

Minoan, 940

minor, 132

modern, 154

morphographic, 50, 76

morphosyllabic, 811

Nabatean, 459

national, 770

non-alphabetical, 41

old, 762

open, 1116

ordinary, 832

phonemic, 777

phonetic, 176

phonographic, 50, 77, 635, 806

pictographic, 985, 991, 1000

primary, 826

pristine, 218

pure, 54, 227

scholastic, 1062

secondary, 829

shallow, 755, 758, 770

SL, 1046, 1051, 1054

standard, 20, 779, 823

Sumerian, 216

supraphonemic, 780

syllabic, 927, 928

syllable-based, 180

tactile, 631

Thai, 41

typographic, 1034
universal, 262, 838

visual, 631

vocal, 1021

*Writing Systems Research*, 8, 128

written

act, 12

language, 5

language bias, 136

utterance, 1, 5, 10, 12–19, 21

Written-SL, 1054–1060

Wulfila, 166, 167, 187, 224

X

<x̂>, 63

xenography, 822

Xerox PARC, 440, 441

Xhosa, 115

Y

Yiddish, 211, 495–497

yours vs. mine, 564

Yubaba, 1117, 1118

Z

Zapotec, 116

Zeno's Paradox, 314

Zipf's principle of least effort, 916

Zohar, 1114, 1115
<figure><img src="image_230.png" /></figure>