What's up with variants of Currier 'E'/EVA 'l'?

[kckluge]

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?

[Aga Tentakulus]

I have already asked myself this question. Why is it once a beautiful loop and once a line with a hook?
My answer.
Unlike a biro and a modern nib where I can also push, the old goose quill is sharpened.
This means that when I push it, it starts to rattle and that causes splashes. The best way to understand this is to try it yourself.
The scribe pulls the nib, which means he has to start again at the loop. If he doesn't get it right, that's where the difference comes from.
That's why I think the signs have the same meaning. Although I suspect a twin for other characters. Example 4 or q. And others.

[bi3mw]

@kckluge: Could you post the comparisons as pictures with underlining ? I can't find EVA I ( I ).

[ReneZ]

He meant Eva-"ell", lower-case L.

[bi3mw]

Ok, my mistake, thanks.

[bi3mw]

What I notice is that sometimes the "l" looks like it was written through "in one go", and in other cases it seems like it was restarted at the top.

one go:    

restarted:    

[Emma May Smith]

I've always seen this glyph as having two strokes:
1) like an [i] stroke: short straight line from top left to bottom right
2) a hook from top left, travelling rightward (and maybe a little upward), then turning down and to the left, crossing stroke (1), before trailing off.

(To my eye:

In the "one go" example you can see that the width and stroke edges in the upper left hand corner of the loop appear to change.

In both cases the bottom right end of the short stroke (1) is thicker(?) and darker, as though the pen stopped and paused for a moment before being lifted.

I'm no expert though, so I could be wrong.)

[davidjackson]

If we are looking at different scribes, then it's probably just personal preference. One guy did it in one go, the other found it harder to achieve so did it in two.

[Emma May Smith]

Well, it depends. Are strokes simply convenience, or do they have identity?

That is, if we see that b, p, and d all have long strokes with attached loops. The position of the long stroke varies from ascending to descending, and the loop faces left or right. Somebody who didn't know Roman script might assume some functional affinity. They would be wrong, but it would be a reasonable hypothesis to investigate.

Yet if somebody who didn't know Arabic script saw ط and ظ they might also assume some affinity. They would be right, as the two glyphs derive from the same glyph in the rasm but with different i'jam.

So it's important to know if writing the glyph with two strokes was mandatory as that might indicate a possible decomposition and some underlying relationship between, say [l] and [i].