I have only seen the name Elias Schwerdtfeger, but never found any information / contact for him
(30-01-2025, 01:47 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@Mauro what do you need from me transcription-cleaning wise (is this even a term or did I just make it up?..)
Until now I have been using the below as a "whole manuscript" base check
#=IVTFF EvaT 2.0 M 3
# Extracted from LSI_ivtff_0d.txt
# Version 2a of 02/02/2023
My preference however is, very strongly, with Rene's transcription "LZ v. 3a" The other was just easier for bulk conformance checks.
My code is set up to deal with some things in this transcription, however ambiguity, extended eva etc, I was dealing with myself.
Over 10 pages this was fine (I felt), but going beyond that does my code need to account for this in some way? I'm guessing "delete" is the usual option.. I doubt this makes a massive difference overall, but things like "is this a, or o?" when a or o make my system work.. its a bit painful to say "delete". Moreover I probably slightly disagree with Rene on maybe 1 glyph per page on average, but others can be (and usually are) several, it adds up.
First I'd need a clear explanation of how your system works (ie.: how to convert EVA characters to curve-line).
For the transcription what I need is a single text file without metadata, converted to your curve-line system. Words separated by spaces or newlines (or any other formatting character actually).
The best would be to start from the same RF1a-n transcription I used in my study, for consistency (not sure if it's "LZ v. 3a", but it comes from René's website). The exact text I used is called "Rf1a-n-x7 without question marks.txt" and it's posted on Github in this folder:
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
PS.: there's a header line starting with %c% which you can remove
(30-01-2025, 02:09 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I expressed an idea based on Tiltmans words, then went off on some brain adventure for no reason.
I have removed "X" from the system. I have gone back to thinking "y" is sometimes a stand in for "a" or maybe "o". It is now my 3rd "Switch".
I feel like I searched my entire house for my keys, then found them in my pocket. Maybe the "l/y" idea chucked me sideways, but while I think they are related via glyph creation/pairing, the function is that "l" belongs with glyphs made from lines, "y" is a tailed "o" or/and "a". "q" "qo" still allude me. but are the final puzzle piece so it is close to submitting (.. and tearing to bits 
)
I remember I was struggling to understand Mauro's system, but then we tried to work it out on a few very simple examples, and it helped me a lot.
To be frank, I tried to follow your notation and explanations, but I'm still very much confused about the basics. If you don't mind maybe answering the following:
1) Does your system work by specifying which classes of glyphs can immediately follow which other glyphs? So, all rules are like "X is always followed by i-type"
2) Does the system always work in the forward direction along the line (so, all rules in the form "X is followed by Y" and never "Y should be prefixed by X")?
3) Does your system only consider individual glyphs? So, all the rules are like "glyph of type X is followed by glyph of type Y" and never "a combination of glyphs AB is followed by a glyph of type Y".
4) Is it possible to fully describe the rules of your system by using a square table where there is one column and one row for each glyph and the table is filled by Y and N denoting whether the column glyph can appear immediately after the row glyph?
For what it's worth, the bench could be the curved counter part of "a" - start writing on the bottom right, line or curve to the top left, then curve backwards. If you start with a line, you get "a", if you start with a curve, you very much get a bench. Which would make only "o" and "d" the outlier, as they don't have any line counterparts, unless "e" is the line version of "o", which could be if you repeat the "a" process, but after the line or curve, curve frontwards instead (you end up inevitably crossing the line if you're doing the line, while with the curve, you can just seamlessly connect back to it). Which would really leave only "d" as the outlier. But I do have my idea for a line counterpart of "d" - it's the glyph that has the line, then curves upwards, then back then, often going below the line. I forgot what that glyph is in EVA.
I re-read paragraph 3 of You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.: “The Hatchmark Skeleton Model”. It contains a huge amount of information, so possibly a short summary would be helpful.
Here are some of the main points as I understand them (I am ignoring gallows and ‘q’ and I may be misunderstanding something):
- Each word can be reduced to a skeleton consisting of curvlets (e-sequences) and minims (i-sequences) only. These sequences are referred to as “turns”.
- Words end with a hatchmark augmented by a flourish (e.g. ‘s’ or ‘n’ instead of final ‘e’ or ‘i’). More flourishes can appear before the end of the word. E.g. daiin=eeiiii (two turns), with a head flourish in the first position and a foot flourish in the last position; ‘a’ is resolved as an 'e+i' ligature.
- In a word, curvlets (e-sequences) typically precede minims (i-sequences). But later in the post there is a careful argument proposing that word spaces convey very little information, so the concept of precedence within words becomes redundant.
I find the case of benches particularly interesting: ‘ch’
ch looks like ‘ee’
ee with something like a “macron” flourish:
”Patrick Feaster” Wrote:cheeaiii (= eeeee+iiii) plus an ornamentation composed of complementary flourishes to flesh it out (with cheeaiii potentially becoming cheeaiin with its one obligatory final flourish, or chedaiin with a second flourish added in).
The bench ‘ch’
ch can receive the plume flourish and become ‘sh’
Sh. It is not clear that the plume of sh should be regarded as the same as the head flourish that turns ‘e’ into ‘s’ and ‘i’ into ‘r’. I understand that ‘sh’ should be regarded as ‘ee’ with two stacked flourishes (macron and plume)? The left column of You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view. does show what appears to be the “plume” or “head flourish” as a standalone glyph (lines 6, 14, 21).
(29-01-2025, 08:45 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So I'd suggest there are really two competing hypotheses here:
1. One treating curves and lines as parts of unitary glyphs (e.g. Winkelmann, Cham, Bluetoes)
2. One treating curves and lines as separable elements (e.g., Alipov, Feaster)
Is there any way that these two theories can be compared, so one can decide they respective merits and if one is “better” than the other?
(31-01-2025, 08:00 AM)Battler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For what it's worth, the bench could be the curved counter part of "a" - start writing on the bottom right, line or curve to the top left, then curve backwards. If you start with a line, you get "a", if you start with a curve, you very much get a bench.
There are several kinds of benches though, curve-curve (ch) and line-curve (ih), the second, while not as common, still quite frequent, even appears on the very first page of the MS. Also, there are half-benches, where the left part is attached to one of the legs of the gallows character. And then there are some very complicated cases of what appears like several bench parts merged together (not included in the image below).
[
attachment=9894]
The examples above are all from 1r-8r of the MS.
(31-01-2025, 08:52 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Here are some of the main points as I understand them (I am ignoring gallows and ‘q’ and I may be misunderstanding something):
This looks like an accurate summary to me, although I haven't revisited many of these ideas for the past four and a half years, so I can't guarantee that I still agree with myself about all details!
One revision I've had in mind is to consider word-final [o] a variant of [b], since the flourish on [n] has a similar range of variation, usually extending away upward as with [b], but sometimes closing itself into a circle as with [o]. If we treat the flourish on [n] as a separable element added to a minim, then applying the same flourish to a curvelet [e] would seem to produce either [o] or [b] depending on its specific form. In terms of word morphology, too, it looks as though tokens of [b] could be plausibly replaced by [o], or alternatively by [n] if preceding curvelets are also changed into minims.
Another idea I've since been toying with is to treat the "macron" or "bar" as a flourish that differs from the other flourish types in that it usually connects two turns rather than closing a single turn. It looks like the first of the two turns can be [e], [ai], [oi], [aii], [oii], etc., while the second turn almost always begins with [ee]. If a gallows can
also modify a following turn, e.g., as [kee], then a "benched gallows" could perhaps be explained as a case in which a preceding turn is being linked forward to a turn that also happens to be modified by a gallows -- for example, linking [e] forward to [kee] would produce [cKhe]. The "bar" and the gallows might need to occupy the same space for purely practical reasons.
(31-01-2025, 08:52 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In a word, curvlets (e-sequences) typically precede minims (i-sequences). But later in the post there is a careful argument proposing that word spaces convey very little information, so the concept of precedence within words becomes redundant.
I wouldn't say precedence necessarily becomes
redundant according to that argument -- even if spacing doesn't convey essential information, it might still reflect a logical structure, as if we were to write "po ta to" broken into CV syllables instead of "potato."
(31-01-2025, 10:47 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The counterpart
Yes, this is an interesting one! At first I assumed it was an example of a bar running forward from
nothing. My best guess now is that it represents one of those rare cases in which a curvelet [e] has both a forward "bar" and another flourish associated with it, as we sometimes see with [{oh}]. There don't seem to be any definite cases of [{y*}] that couldn't just as well be interpreted as [q*]. So maybe this was an attempt to write [{yh}] in a way that couldn't be confused with something like [qh].
I have wondered what the implications of the "s" "swish" you sometimes see on the bar of "qo" has. I've not found a link between "ch" "sh" and "qo" myself, but would be very interested in others knowledge or ideas on that.
@oshfdk
1) Does your system work by specifying which classes of glyphs can immediately follow which other glyphs? So, all rules are like "X is always followed by i-type"
Yes (point 4 clarifies further detail)
2) Does the system always work in the forward direction along the line (so, all rules in the form "X is followed by Y" and never "Y should be prefixed by X")?
Yes. There is no "its ok if it didn't conform because the "y" before is magic".
3) Does your system only consider individual glyphs? So, all the rules are like "glyph of type X is followed by glyph of type Y" and never "a combination of glyphs AB is followed by a glyph of type Y".
It only checks pairs until you "switch", then it tracks what you switched from and to and if that sequence conforms.
You can have an extra switch (following a switch, only) which does nothing functional but is allowed, so technically it tracks up to 4 glyphs. 3 switches is considered a non-conformance, so it can never get past 4 and conform.
4) Is it possible to fully describe the rules of your system by using a square table where there is one column and one row for each glyph and the table is filled by Y and N denoting whether the column glyph can appear immediately after the row glyph?
I think so. I best think in pictures to be honest, I see it like a simple electronic circuit diagram.
Currently there are 4 groups.
3 can move to 1 other place, or stay and do another of them self (to a limit) then be forced to change or end.
1 can not do another of itself but move 2 ways, or end.