Is [a] always [a]?

[MarcoP]

What I wonder is: how can we know whether these are all variations of the glyph EVA calls [a]? Don't some of these look more like a bunch of minims with a loop on the left and right? Like an "m"? In the same way "anchiton" could also be "michiton"? If [aiin] really contains the separate unit [a], then why is it always there? Might what we call [a] preceding minims just be what the VM minim looks like when it's not preceded by a minim? Like an onset flourish? How can we know?

Hi Koen,
it seems to me that the idea can be interpreted in two different ways:
1. there are tiny differences in the shape of 'a' that really represent different characters (along the lines of what 101 does, as Rene said)
2. a+i is different from a+anythingElse

In order to say something about 1, a transcription representing that specific difference is necessary. Carefully transcribing a few pages could be enough to give an answer: do the two shapes systematically occur in different contexts (preceding and following glyphs)?

2 could be easier. As a first step, this are counts for the left context of a+i vs a+[^i], i.e. not(i) (Takahashi transcription). "Not(i)" includes space.

   

In my opinion (if I have not messed things up) this graph suggests that the symbols are at least closely related. The differences are due to the fact that words tend to either include e-bench sequences or i-sequences, not both (an interesting fact discussed by Emma You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

This said, your idea of treating aiin as a single entity makes perfect sense: if the writing system is phonetical (meaningful or not) iin could be like an accent, that in a few languages (e.g. Italian) is only used for vowels at the end of words.

The only words we know how to read for sure are the month names, and that is because the images tell us to expect month names.

I think that the month names are easy to read because they form a well-known sequence in the correct order. The images may be helpful, but not necessary (though the month names would likely not be there without the images). This list is so clearly meaningful that it really does not belong with the rest of the manuscript