Re: VMs: Re: How to write <ch> and <sh>...?

[Koontz John E <John.Koontz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, GC wrote:
> I'm not an EVA officionado because I'm unaware of the rules, I'm not an EVA
> officinado because there's absolutely NO reason whatsover to refer to a
> glyph that occurs about 10,000 times (no exaggeration) as <ch>, while
> referring to another glyph that occurs to a lesser extent (about 9,000)in
> the manuscript as an <a>.  Who made these rules anyway?  If it's <ch>, why
> isn't it also <ei> for the {a} glyph?  <ch> occurs more often as a unit than
> <a> does, yet it's been complicated by the "this stroke counts, that stroke
> doesn't" ambiguity.  If you're going to stroke, then stroke.

I suspect the reason for settling on ch/sh vs. a is that ch sometimes
occures bracketing a gallows, whereas a (ei) never occurs bracketing
anything.  As far as sh, like ch, as it seems to be a derivation of sh,
though I guess it doesn't ever bracket anything.

On the same logic, it would be useful to write the gallows as digraphs,
since they sometimes embed things.

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