Diane:
No I did not intend to mix you with A.M. Smith. I was perfectly sure that you stand for denying the Latin European cultural roots of the script. My apologies for this misuderstanding.
This is explained if we adopt the "tail modifier" glyph construction scheme. If y is not a 9 but is e + ), then most of y's will be naturally written in that "awkward" way. Same thing for d's. They are not nice native 8's, they are e's with tail loops.
No I did not intend to mix you with A.M. Smith. I was perfectly sure that you stand for denying the Latin European cultural roots of the script. My apologies for this misuderstanding.
(14-04-2016, 12:05 PM)Koen Gh. wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hmm. If you look You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for example, you'll see the first word on the second line. The initial "9" is clearly a 9 here: the "a" in the same word looks totally different.
Now on the other hand, look at the third word on the third line, final "9". That's not a 9, that's an a with a flourish.
This is explained if we adopt the "tail modifier" glyph construction scheme. If y is not a 9 but is e + ), then most of y's will be naturally written in that "awkward" way. Same thing for d's. They are not nice native 8's, they are e's with tail loops.