Currier's Notes

[John Grove <jgrove@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Every now and then, I should revisit his notes as was obvious in my
latest
'discovery'. He also described in great detail the 'c & i' stroke with
final ligature
nature even using the same c89, ccc89 type of explanation that I've been
rambling on about.
He doesn't however, address that these same ligatures when combined
without a 'c' or'i' element tend
to create some of the rare wierdos found throughout the manuscript.

As Rene mentioned, he did indeed address the issue of line-initial
crossed gallows as well.
However, the possibility that the lack of line-initial crossed gallows
are related to Split-Gallows remains open for debate - but could be an
explanation for some of the Split-G's.

Jorge recently asked about the effect that the right-stroke of one
character might have on the left-stroke of the next. With only 'c' or
'i' left-strokes there doesn't seem, to me, to be any correlation
whatsoever.

However, Currier did address the final stroke of one word possibly
influencing the first character of the following word. He stated that,
almost exclusively in Bio-B, words ending in 'y' were followed by 'qo'
about 63% of the time, and by an 'l' or 'r/s' 19%, or finally by a
crossed gallows 18% of the time.

An opposite result was found for words ending in l,r/s,n. Words ending
in 'n' were never followed by an l/r/s, were followed by 'qo' only 8% of
the time, leaving 92% of the time assuring the next word began with a
crossed gallows. Similar results for 'r/s' with 11% qo, 2% l/r, and 76%
crossed gallows. Words ending in an 'l' also fell within this group at
12% qo, 6% l/r, and 82% crossed gallows.

Is it possible to compare the 'apples and oranges' of all the various
statistics that have been run?
Do the present day Paradigms account for Currier's statistics? Or are
his numbers above irrelevant because they only apply to Bio-B?

Anyway, this little trip into Currier's notes was a bit of a
re-awakening for me - I constantly drift back to the left/right stroke
patterns and it's kind of reassuring that Currier also saw the
characters could be broken into two series (in his case) of eight/
resulting in sixteen variations.

A variation could be:

Initial Character

	c

Independents like Gallows, 'q' and '-'{line of h}.

Zero to 4 extenders (i/c variations)

	- cc ccc cccc ccccc
	i ii iii iiii iiiii
	(a = initial c + first i extender) 

One to Two Finals

	o,y,d,g,b,s (-,l,j,m,n,r)

Thus, EVA 'u'  = c + i-extender + n
      EVA 'an' = c + 2i extenders + n 
      EVA ain  = c + 3i +n
      EVA aiin = c + 4i + n
      EVA aiiin = c + 5i + n.
providing 5 separate (but possibly related) 'characters'.


The '-' is curious because it is ALMOST always connected to a following
'c' thus EVA 'ch/ih/cth/ith' types are formed. However some of the
weirdoes like 131,192, 204 - and maybe 164 seem to indicate it is an
independent form and not 'hard coded' with a c initial or final.
The Gallows has two forms '4' and '|' initials. Like the '-' they seem
to be independent a perhaps explains 'q' as well as several of the
gallows like weirdoes or some that don't look like gallows at all --
like 206 and 141.

Other weirdoes appear to be stand-alone finals like 163 and 140, double
stand-alone finals like
135, 208, and 143. Some of these are also combined with the independents
to form things like 206, 141, 164, 131, 192, and 204. A number of other
weirdoes exist where cho, chy types are run together: also accounted for
by this scheme: c + '-' + c + (y final) as opposed to c + '-' + c + c +
(y final) which would be the regular chy form. A few occurrences of an
's final' over an 'o' also occur and are also accounted for by the above
scheme: c + (o final + s final).

How to go from here with this line of thinking is perhaps dead-ending
again due to the frequent usage of the basic 'non-extended' series over
all others.

Well, enough repetition eh?

John.