[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: VMs: Image Source, Accuracy of Transcriptions

GC wrote:
> Look at the forerunners to the EVA, and you'll see that most of them
> attempted to transcribe what they saw, and only after that attempt to make
> sense of it.  On every page, in every word, every letter has a space in
> between it and the next.  Confined within these spaces you will find a
> single glyph representation.  What's the big deal and all the deliberation
> over a character set, when you have such obviously clear demarkations for
> each glyph?  Every page, every word, every glyph, clearly demarked with
> spaces, and you can't make a determination?

Glen, I usually agree with your views. But the big deal is that this is
cursive writing in an unknown script. No one without the key, even a
scribal copier, can possibly say at this point what a glyph is. Period.

My logical choices are: stand-alone glyphs in any word not usually
connected in any way to another letter; the marginal "keys" if not some
ancient poor fool's own transcription scheme; and f057v ring2.

> [rant snipped]

> Instead he "printed" each
> glyph, and sometimes used a cursive style on glyphs such as "m" and "n", but
> that was natural for his time.  Each one is separately written, apart from
> the next.  When they are combined, they are a "combination" glyph, but an
> individual glyph just the same.  What can be more simple?

Cursive joining calls it into question.
[Currier] {Frogguy} /EVA/
If [D*] {v*} /b/ (round) or [D] {v} /n/ (sharp) did not exist as
stand-alone letters then I'd agree. But they do stand alone:

	f004v.08 Left [OEACD*] {oxacv*} /olaeb/
	f023v.11 Right [SM*] {ctiiv*} /cheeb/

	f015v.01 Center [8PSAD] {8qpctav} /dtchan/
	f029v.05R [POSOD] {qpoctov} /tochon/
	f042v.04C [SCPAD] {ctcqpav} /chetan/
	f087v.14L [2AD] {sav} /san/

So I can't agree with your "m" & "n" as individuals. Especially when
they are connected to [A] {a} /a/.

> What chance have you got to decode the manuscript if you're still unwilling
> to make a commitment on its glyph content?  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.  Until you
> make a basic decision, you can't conduct accurate frequency counts, you
> can't do accurate word length studies, you can't do mean and distance
> counts, you can't do chi2, you can't do SQUAT beyond only generalized
> statistics.  Without following the clear demarkations set out by a simple
> author, you'll never be able to do anything more meaningful than look at all
> the pretty pictures of naked women.  To some that's enough, I guess. :-)

[Currier] {Frogguy} /EVA/
My tack has ALWAYS been -- What are the minimal characters?
	[A] {a} /a/ may in fact be derived from a [CI] {ci} /ci/ ligature
because [C] {c} /c/ and [I] {i} /i/ occur separately.
	[9] {9} /y/ may be from [C+descender] {c_} /c_/ as shown in f043v.06R
[OPCC_] {oqpcc_} /otee_/.
	But then if [89] {89} /dy/ is so common why not use [6] {cg} /g/ which
appears to be its ligature form more often? Because I think [6] {cg} /g/
makes more sense as [2+descender] {sg} /sÅ/. Just as [J] {ig} /m/ makes
more sense as [r+descender] {2g} /rÅ/.
	The same goes for the gallows. Their parts also stand-alone. There's
even split gallows! {q...p}

Questions like these ARE the big deal to me. If I can still wonder at
what the basic glyphs are then it's all still up for grabs baby. ;)


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