10-12-2021, 09:45 PM
(10-12-2021, 02:07 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That led me to wonder whether the "real" conclusion to the paragraph might have been added in above it -- implying in turn that there had been insufficient space left for it at the bottom, which would have been the case if the first line of the following paragraph had already been written.
Looking back on it, I have no fresh ideas and can only say once again that it's really a desperate mess. The addition above is obviously not a simple continuation of the paragraph-last line - that because the last line does not stretch to the right margin. Whoever wished just to continue the line, would firstly use the available line-space to its full extent, and only then proceed with adding the remainder atop the whole paragraph. The fact that there is room left after the ot (strange as the latter is, but anyway) suggests that this is the intended ending of this line. Subsequently, what's added on the top may have been the intended fourth line which it was impossible to fit under line 3 because the next paragraph was indeed already in place when the paragraph in question was being put down.
However, the close look at the baseline reveals that its initial direction abrupts with polaiin in line 1, with otcheey in line 2, and with cheedy in line 3. The vords that follow in each of the three lines have their baseline jumps all at the same angle, suggesting that this is a separate block of text included after the main (left) block of text was written.
(10-12-2021, 03:34 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm interested in the vord in the middle that seems to begin [choi].
Probably he began writing an r, then checked himself that the ascender aligns with the descender of the l, and in order to avoid that, he added the awkward curl - that which would have been the ascender of an r under normal conditions - to the right. Note that without the final loop the character looks pretty much like a normal r. Then for some reason the necessity arose to correct r into m. So one type of tail was just overwritten with another.
But this idea does not explain "overlapping the descending stroke in such a problematic way", as you put it. Maybe a later emendation acts here - the "problematic" section is slightly darker in colour than the i stroke.
And yes, good point about -rum.