27-10-2024, 03:51 PM
(23-10-2024, 11:26 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What's really important is that, in spite of the similarity between the independent transliterations, a visual inspection of the actual handwriting shows that there are different forms of g. One clearly has a c shape to start with, while the other is more similar to m. The same situation as with Eva-r and Eva-s really.
Another way of expressing this observation would be to say that the flourish which [g] and [m] share in common may be found --
(1) attached to a clear "c shape" or "curve," which makes it a clear [g].
(2) attached to a clear "minim" or "line," which makes it a clear [m].
(3) attached to a stroke that appears to fall somewhere between a "curve" and a "line" -- which could be interpreted as "a [g] that is more similar to an [m]" or "an [m] that is more similar to a [g]" or "a glyph that might be either [g] or [m]."
-- and that the same range of possibilities likewise exists for the flourish which [s] and [r] share in common.
But rather than saying there are "different forms of [g]" and so forth for each of the EVA glyph types involved, it might be more efficient to consider the range of different underlying forms of hatchmarks -- which I'm using here as a generic term for "curves" and "lines" and any other strokes that seem to fall functionally into the same category with them.
One page that can be used to illustrate how much variation there is among hatchmark forms is f6v. It features some nicely typical "curves":
[attachment=9337]
And also some nicely typical "lines":
[attachment=9338]
When there's a sequence of hatchmarks (whether "curves" or "lines"), they often look very similar to each other, suggesting that the scribe wrote them in rapid succession using a similar motion, or at least a motion that "evolved" progressively over the course of the sequence. This is typical.
[attachment=9339]
But in some places on this particular page, "curves" and "lines" seem to converge on another form that doesn't fall clearly into one or the other category. In these examples --
[attachment=9340]
-- the two examples on the left are, I think, reasonably clear as far as EVA glyph identifications go, but the "curve" is rotated counterclockwise so that its upper part points more directly upwards, while the "line" has a conspicuous upturn at the bottom (more conspicuous cases like this can be found elsewhere, but I'm limiting myself to this one page for now). The remaining examples are less clear. If they're "curves," they lack the upper part of the curve -- they look more like [L]. But if they're "lines," the first stroke is oddly vertical -- and in the example at the bottom, it certainly looks as though there's a contrast between these forms (two of them in a row) and the preceding "lines." To my eye, these forms look more like each other than they do like either typical "curves" or typical "lines," even though word morphology would suggest the forms must sometimes be one and sometimes the other.
And what about the final curve or line here? -->
[attachment=9341]
On top of this, we also see some tokens of an alternate form of curve that looks more like [<] than [C] -- a phenomenon also found on some other pages (e.g. f1r):
[attachment=9342]
But then is the first glyph here [r], or is it [s] with the [<] form of curve? Those two alternatives would seem to be fiendishly hard to tell apart, unless from context.
[attachment=9343]
More to follow.