People often assert this, but I'm unsure of any evidence. If I wrote a manuscript in a pretend language, I would expect it to end up with language-like patterns, some automatically and some intentionally.

Humans aren't random number generators, and they aren't stupid. Therefore, the implicit claim that a human could not create a manuscript containing gibberish that exhibits many language-like patterns seems unlikely to be true.

So we have two options:

1. This is either a real language or an encoded real language that we've never seen before and can't decrypt, even after many years of attempts

2. Or it is gibberish that exhibits features of a real language

I can't help but feel that option 2 is now the more likely choice.