It's fascinating to see the development of the letters.
Here the "s" looks more like an "r" but... then I remembered that some of the Carolingian esses and early proto-Gothic esses have a slight hook on the middle left, almost like an "f" (in fact, it's easy to mistake it for an "f" if it crosses the stem) and now I see why they were written that way—it was an evolutionary development from this earlier shape.
Marco, I was interested in what you had to say about the Veneto dialect, so I looked at some more examples. I noticed that the "q" is often written without a following "u". That seems to be an older form also... In the past I've noticed "q" without "u" in some of the early medieval documents and also that many of the scribes who were using the "cc" shape for "a" (and also some that were using a more familiar "a") started putting a "cc" superscripted next to the "q" (where we would normally write "qu").
So... if it was small and next to a "q" it represented a "u" rather than "a" which is interesting because it's almost as though the "u" was secondary, not as important, and yet by the 15th century, in most places, the "q" and "u" are written together, on the same line... except, apparently in some parts of the Veneto.
Another thing you mentioned was the dropping of many of the doubled letters and I looked at another Veneto document and it was written in a similar way. That really reminded me of the VMS, where doubled letters are rare except for the "cc" (which I strongly suspect is a ligature rather than a doubled letter).
Here the "s" looks more like an "r" but... then I remembered that some of the Carolingian esses and early proto-Gothic esses have a slight hook on the middle left, almost like an "f" (in fact, it's easy to mistake it for an "f" if it crosses the stem) and now I see why they were written that way—it was an evolutionary development from this earlier shape.
Marco, I was interested in what you had to say about the Veneto dialect, so I looked at some more examples. I noticed that the "q" is often written without a following "u". That seems to be an older form also... In the past I've noticed "q" without "u" in some of the early medieval documents and also that many of the scribes who were using the "cc" shape for "a" (and also some that were using a more familiar "a") started putting a "cc" superscripted next to the "q" (where we would normally write "qu").
So... if it was small and next to a "q" it represented a "u" rather than "a" which is interesting because it's almost as though the "u" was secondary, not as important, and yet by the 15th century, in most places, the "q" and "u" are written together, on the same line... except, apparently in some parts of the Veneto.
Another thing you mentioned was the dropping of many of the doubled letters and I looked at another Veneto document and it was written in a similar way. That really reminded me of the VMS, where doubled letters are rare except for the "cc" (which I strongly suspect is a ligature rather than a doubled letter).