No text, but a visual code

[-JKP-]

...

   I would say that the rest of the glyphs maybe resemble known glyphs in shape but have another semantic value

I want to clunk my head on the desk when people say this specifically to me. HOW MANY TIMES have I said that we have to maintain a distinction between the shapes and the meaning? Maybe 300 times here on the forum and in my blog? You are preaching to the choir.


YES, the shapes are not related to meaning. I KNOW THAT. I've probably emphasized it more than any other VMS researcher. I HAVE TO because I keep writing blogs about the origins of the shapes and then people "accuse" me of saying it's Latin.

NO, I AM NOT SAYING THE MEANING IS BASED ON THE ORIGIN OF THE SHAPES. I never have. It might be, or it might be something otherwise, but the shapes do NOT determine the content. What they demonstrate is the cultural exposure of whoever designed the text.


But you wrote this:

 6º The script of the book uses totally unknown glyphs...

And that is not true. Most of the shapes are derived from Latin characters and possibly to a lesser extent from Greek. The VMS shapes are not rare or unknown. It's completely incorrect to characterize the VMS glyphs as "totally unknown glyphs". Only a small proportion fit into that category. Most of them are common. Not only are they common, but the ones that are shaped like Latin abbreviations are positioned in the same way in the VMS text as they are in Latin texts. This tells me the designer had some knowledge of or experience with Latin scribal conventions.