(09-08-2026, 05:46 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-08-2026, 07:22 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The symbol z looks like a small version of k and appears very rarely in the manuscript. 

And this is definitely not k, since the scribe of Astrology has no problem writing this gallows.

Why not?
Space is limited in this special field; not really a good chance to write the "full scale" gallows.
We see at some other occasions how exceedingly big these gallows were written when the sribes had enough space (like in a first line of a page, of a paragraph, or else).

The question here is: did the inventors of VMS alphabet / cipher set chose to produce different characters which are just a few millimeters different by height? Or did they prefer clearly different characters?

The second question is: does the tail at the end transport an additional meaning with the last character, apart from being just end-of-word?
In the last case, all three z would be identical, and maybe identical with k also.

(09-08-2026, 07:59 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(09-08-2026, 05:46 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[..]
Space is limited in this special field; not really a good chance to write the "full scale" gallows.
[..]
In the last case, all three z would be identical, and maybe identical with k also.

In the latter case, it’s unlikely, because if it’s dakakm, then km would be an invalid combination.

(09-08-2026, 08:37 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But I don't get the idea of "invalid combination" here: why should something be invalid..?

(10-08-2026, 09:46 AM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Essentially, “incorrect” means “non‑standard.” For the most part, m is located at the end of words and is not a highly interactive letter, appearing only after a o and i

(02-08-2026, 09:50 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A glyph that is that rare can be assumed to be an "error" or simply a variant of some similar glyph.  It will not be this simplification that will prevent us from cracking the manuscript. 

(14-08-2026, 01:31 PM)Grove Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(02-08-2026, 09:50 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A glyph that is that rare can be assumed to be an "error" or simply a variant of some similar glyph.  It will not be this simplification that will prevent us from cracking the manuscript. 

It is doubtful that assuming the glyph anomalies are some sort of simple variation of similar glyphs will prevent us from seeing the underlying text (assuming there is something), but there are hundreds of rare glyphs that often look like they are created from parts of other glyphs not normally joined together. The fact that so many exist seems like it serves a purpose to me, rather than an error. I get that you’re saying they can be treated as an error because they don’t impact most of the content on a page but I think they could help as a focal point for some investigation to try and break what makes them necessary to show up where they do.

Not that anyone has ever succeeded at this approach, but anomalies really can be helpful.

(07-08-2026, 07:22 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What do you think about this letter? What can it tell us about the manuscript’s cipher?

(15-08-2026, 12:47 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(07-08-2026, 07:22 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What do you think about this letter? What can it tell us about the manuscript’s cipher?

I'd be interested to see if this glyph is associated to a (LFD)scribe the majority of the time. I've never looked myself. It's hard to say if it acts differently from one thing or another as there are so few, but if "multiple scribes" repeat the same thing it would add validity to it being a "new thing" rather than a "rushed thing" (or whatever)