Re: VMs: F66r

["Larry Roux" <LRoux@xxxxxxx>]

This is the crux of the issue.  For instance, EVA "r" and EVA "m".  "m" is most probably "r" + something else (ie a plural indicator  -r vs -rs or -r vs -rment)
But how far do you go in breaking the glyphs up without even a clue as to what the base language really is?  




Larry Roux
Syracuse University
lroux@xxxxxxx


>>> G.Landini@xxxxxxxxxx 06/11/04 05:48AM >>>
On Friday 11 June 2004 04:23, GC wrote:
> We have our Latin shorthand picnic table "standing still", walking to the
> left and to the right.  The second and third "9" in the sequence are not
> the same as the first and fourth, and each glyph is carefully composed! 
> There's a new one here I couldn't see clearly in the black-and-whites. 
> I'll have to look this one up in my shorthand tables.  Variances are minor,
> (straight leg "9" instead of a looped leg), but clear and decisive,
> something easily achievable by someone practiced in the art of shorthand
> notation.

Also some interesting detail I just found in this page is that the 9th 
character in the vertical sequence is the same as the 10th character  (weirdo 
&169;)  in f57v which looks like a "L" with a small superscript "o" or <'> 
and followed by eva <v>

The locus is: <f66r.S24> and I had misread it as <e>  

I wonder if it would be better to split &169; character into 2: the left part 
as it appears here in f66r (keeping the same code) and in f57v add a "normal" 
<v> to it.
Comments?

Cheers,

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

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