TheCodeBreakers
For example, if
a dot is dropped in a telegraphed message in English, so that an i (••)
becomes an e (•) and "individual" becomes "endividual," the recipient will
know that an error was made because English lacks the Sequence "en-
dividual." But if the language used were the hypothetical four-letter
language, in which all sequences of four letters
were used and therefore all were potentially acceptable in the
message, the same dropping of a dot would go undetected. "Xfim,"
meaning perhaps "come," would be changed to "xfem," maybe meaning
"go" and, without redundancy, no alarm bells would ring. (There is, of
course, a higher order of redundancy—that mandated by context—which
might sound the alarm. If "xfem" meant "green," it would not fit the
context. A perfectly non-redundant language can therefore probably not
exist, since at least a few basic agreements that a few recurring
experiences of the real world will be represented by the same verbal
annaabi.ee 
