13-04-2020, 11:07 PM
There are so few double gallows that there would be more ligatures than non-ligature occurrences. The appearance of these special gallows in the top line of paragraphs suggests that they only did this where space permitted. As you say, they're "fancy" versions of what would be plain glyphs elsewhere.
The variety of shapes makes it difficult to understand how they would be read. Not only by us but by readers who knew the script. How much information could a reader get from them if they were unique? Would they understand that they are two glyphs joined together and figure out the constituent parts?
We tend to categorise gallows by 1) the left loop (presence or absence) and 2) the right leg (touching the ground or bent). How did the writers see them? Maybe any other loops or bends didn't carry meaning and could be elaborated wilfully without altering the glyph? Elizabeth I of England had an elaborate signature with loops on multiple letters. The reader knows that these elaborations can be discarded without losing meaning.
The variety of shapes makes it difficult to understand how they would be read. Not only by us but by readers who knew the script. How much information could a reader get from them if they were unique? Would they understand that they are two glyphs joined together and figure out the constituent parts?
We tend to categorise gallows by 1) the left loop (presence or absence) and 2) the right leg (touching the ground or bent). How did the writers see them? Maybe any other loops or bends didn't carry meaning and could be elaborated wilfully without altering the glyph? Elizabeth I of England had an elaborate signature with loops on multiple letters. The reader knows that these elaborations can be discarded without losing meaning.