[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: F66r
On Friday 11 June 2004 16:34, Larry Roux wrote:
> 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?
I do not think the example above is valid. Eva <m> stands on its own, but the
remaining of m-r (m minus r) is something that does not seem to appear
anywhere. The size of the r and corresponding m fragments seem to be
different too. The only other letter that has something similar is <g>, but
the right fragment does not appear on its own anywhere else.
In the case I mentioned earlier (below) there is evidence of both parts
appearing separated elsewere in the ms.
> 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.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: