28-05-2023, 12:53 AM
If you look carefully, EVA 'l' comes in at least two variants, depending on how the top of the 'x' portion of the character is closed. In some cases it's with a single linear stroke across the top, and in some cases it's with an arched stroke (or even a very carefully done '^') across the top. This is not a between-scribes variation, as can be seen by perusing f83v:
* You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows a nice example of the straight-stroke-across form
* You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows a nice example of the '^'-top form
Given that this is/appears to be a constructed script, the only correct answer to the question of whether the distinction matters lies in the (unknown) intention of the creator(s), but one can at least ask whether from a paleographical perspective this is *likely* to be a meaningful, intended distinction as opposed to scribal haste/slioppiness.
Thoughts?
* You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows a nice example of the straight-stroke-across form
* You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows a nice example of the '^'-top form
Given that this is/appears to be a constructed script, the only correct answer to the question of whether the distinction matters lies in the (unknown) intention of the creator(s), but one can at least ask whether from a paleographical perspective this is *likely* to be a meaningful, intended distinction as opposed to scribal haste/slioppiness.
Thoughts?