Re: VMs: F66r

["GC" <gc-@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Larry 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?

My approach would be (and actually is) to record the detail and worry about
statistics later.  If you don't record the obvious connected <ee> pairs as
<Ee> (I think that's right for EVA), you can't count them.   You can't
locate them and do image comparisons, you can't run any sort of statistical
analysis on their placement within lines or words, or anything, because in
your transcription the detail doesn't exist.  It's only after you record the
detail that meaningful information can be extracted from it.  It's a
handicap, in my view.  You can't even dismiss these as "peculiarities of the
hand" until you've thoroughly recorded and examined them.

I'm just saying that the new images present a great opportunity to rewrite
the EVA transcription to include all the proper detail, and a great
opportunity to start bringing out the ideas many have sat on in silence
while staring endless hours at the VMS text.

GC




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