VMs: RE: Weirdoes, ligatures (long)

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxx>]

John Grove wrote:
> A glyph in any language (Alphabet, Hanzi, etc...) is a
> compilation of
> penstrokes.

Thank you, my mistake.  My wording should have been more along the
lines of "do the penstrokes that compose glyphs have individual
meaning, or do they simply exist to form glyphs?"  As we see with
<e> and <i>, just as in the Latin alphabet, single strokes can
sometimes form glyphs, as "c" and "i", but on the average two or
more strokes are necessary to build glyphs in an alphabet.

> >>I do not think that this is so simple.
> Lets take <n>. Is this part of <in> and <iin>? Many think so.
> Then, <n> would not apear after any other character except <i>.
> But it does, in the duplets <an> (119 times), <en>  (7
> times), <on> (9
> times),
> <sn> (once) and on its own (at least 3 times).
>
> 	I, ofcourse, think that it is simple to consider
> that 'n' is a character by
> itself as all 'characters or glyphs' are created until
> they hit one of the
> standard
> 'end ligatures'... Thus: 'n' consists of the left half
> 'i' and end-stroke
> that makes
> it an 'n'. Another (character or glyph) uses the same
> end stroke - but has
> two 'i's
> instead. Yet another has 3 and so on... Then of course
> - we do have those
> annoying
> a + i-stroke character/glyphs + endstroke to make
> things like an @ in the
> smallest
> form to an aiiin in the longest form. The 'en' could be
> basically the same
> as an @
> with the connection between the beginning 'a' form
> lost. 'on' is really two
> separate
> glyphs - the 'o' and the single 'n' - same for s (which
> consists of a
> beginning c-stroke
> and an ending ligature which is common for sh & r as
> well as a few of those
> tear-drop
> wierdos).
>
> 	Construction of a glyph/character is in my view a
> left to right creation -
> ending
> with one (sometimes two) standard end-strokes that form
> the combinations
> s/r, b/n, 8/j,
> y/l, ch/ih, etc... and yes they can be stand alone too.
> There is no such
> thing in my view
> of an 'i or e' stroke that doens't end. (Yes, I know
> there are one or two
> samples where
> it doesn't look like a word ends properly - but, I
> think most of these
> character combinations
> can be accounted for by building a glyph/character in
> this fashion. The
> gallows play a bit
> of an odd role as well - sometimes as end strokes,
> sometimes as beginning
> strokes - of that
> I won't commit yet... But, you can commit me 8-) to the
> glyph/character
> left-to-right stroke
> creation methods...

We have the question of the <i> strokes in middles of words.  Is
<ii> in the middle of a word simply an <in> without the end
stroke?  And if it is, should it be represented as a individual
glyph in my version, or in EVA as a ligatured pair?  To answer
this question one has to make some assumptions on calligraphy, as
you are doing, but I do think that some concensus might be made on
this through examination.  Implementing Nick's idea of word
numbering, here are just a few examples of <ii> in the middle of
words to study, using the notation "folio.line.word" for ease of
location:

1r.11.5	5v.3.6	20r.2.4	24v.14.1	31r.14.1
1r.15.7	7r.5.1	20v.1.1	25v.3.8	31r.16.2
2r.4.1	8r.13.9	23r.4.3	25v.7.3
2r.8.9	17v.6.3	23r.6.8	26r.1.2
3v.2.1	18r.2.8	23v.12.2	27r.11.2

If we observe and delineate a few rules about the calligraphy of
the cursive text, such as the use and placement of end strokes, we
can form a much better picture of what constitutes a glyph.  (This
also provides some information about "gaps" in pages between the
usage of a specific glyph form, a detail that has its own special
uses.)

GC