[
attachment=5238]
I don't know anything about EVA and I don't want to know.
But the translation with Google from Latin into English looks something like this.
(28-01-2021, 07:57 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Plautus, Pseudulus 21-30
Edit: There is a translation in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Pair this with "the Cipher Manuscript" (as Yale calls it), where contextual guessing is impossible, and you're in big trouble.
JKP: I agree, the right stroke of "o" is curved, while the right stroke of "a" is a line. However, the bottom connection may be more typical for "a"? It's really ahrd to call in some cases.
Koen, there's a pen skip near the end of the tail, so I can't tell for sure, but I think that line might be part of the long tail from the letter above. The tails on the y chars are sometimes very long and thin. Look also at the length of the descender on the l char:
[attachment=5239] [attachment=5248]
(28-01-2021, 09:30 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But the translation with Google from Latin into English looks something like this.
Garbage in, garbage out. Don't use Google translate from Latin, especially when the so-called Latin does not make any sense in the language.
(28-01-2021, 07:51 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.To me, the four s/r glyphs form a continuum from c-with tail to minim-with tail, in the order 1, 3, 2, 4.
The first circle is clearly "o". The second is clearly EVA-a built from an i-minim. The second one is built like an o, but it connects at the bottom.
This continuum-nature of the script bothers me, since the functional load of the glyphs for discriminating between otherwise valid vords seems to be rather high.
Maybe you're right about Google.
But the alphabetical order could be right.
et aut erum ut adi aut.
According to this, the long word would be where JKP points out.
"
derasorum" where he puts the ending wrong. dum instead of rum.
You see, a consensus is emerging.
(28-01-2021, 10:38 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Maybe you're right about Google.
But the alphabetical order could be right.
et aut erum ut adi aut.
The words may be Latin, but the sentence is not: "and or master so-that I-have-approached or". The syntax is all wrong.
(28-01-2021, 10:38 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You see, a consensus is emerging.
There is a continuum of shapes between a and o and there is a continuum of shapes between r and s.
There may be a distinct shape in between r and s, (it has a little foot) but that will change the single continuum into two...
Same problem with 'uncertain spaces'.
In the first clip in this thread, from Koen, I am most concerned about the very first character, because it is clearly a e to which a plume has been added rather inaccurately. This is rare.
That little foot gets my attention as well.
I don't know if the VMS r is modeled after the Latin "r + tail" (Latin "i plus tail" also is written like this) but... from gathering thousands of samples, one thing I've noticed is that many scribes wrote "r" both ways (both with and without a foot) without any change in meaning.