VMs: RE: Paired gallows + entropy...

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nick wrote:

> Certainly, EVA seems unlikely to correspond to the underlying
> alphabet: and
> even if you take a more obviously glyph-based view (such as FSG
> or Strong),
> there are many possible renderings (is "4o" a glyph or not? is
> "cc" a glyph
> or not? etc), and so opinions differ.

I don't even have to go outside my own head to bump into major differences
of opinion! :-)

This 4o thing is just one of those problems.  Just when I'm coming around to
the view that this may be an individual glyph, something else pops up to say
it isn't.  We obviously have 4 and o separately, and in varying orders, but
there's nothing to say that 4o is not a composite glyph.  One thing that
makes me think it is not is the o in its various forms.  There is an o with
a hook and an o with a teardrop over it, found as a stand-alone (variations
are probably the same glyph).  Unfortunately we find the same thing over the
o in conjunction with the 4.

So we either have two forms of o (one with a diacritic and one without) or
we have two forms of o AND two forms of 4o.  Just on the outside chance,
I've made glyphs for both so they can be globally replaced to suit one's own
interpretation, but for me the verdict is still out on the meaning of this,
and whether 4o is a glyph in its own right.  This may be ultimately resolved
when I can get an accurate count of all forms of glyphs and compare them
with known combinations, like say the 89.  If 4o statistics are more in line
with pairs than with glyph occurrences, or vice versa, this will probably be
the deciding factor for me.

GC

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list