Yes, I have seen this.
It is one of the many solutions where, reading the proposal, there is nothing that causes this feeling of: "hey, there is something to this". It is very much the same-old same-old.
However, the author is a highly respectable scholar in his area of expertise (egyptology) with a deep knowledge of the languages that he is proposing, so one should be careful not to rush to dismissal if one has nothing concrete to base it on.
I don't believe that this is the right solution (and there isn't really enough proposed plain text to call it a solution just yet), but it is more serious than the meso-american proposals that are chronologically not acceptable.
The reason for comparing it with that is that it was also proposed by recognised scholars.
Here he is just following the v101 alphabet.
It is one of the many solutions where, reading the proposal, there is nothing that causes this feeling of: "hey, there is something to this". It is very much the same-old same-old.
However, the author is a highly respectable scholar in his area of expertise (egyptology) with a deep knowledge of the languages that he is proposing, so one should be careful not to rush to dismissal if one has nothing concrete to base it on.
I don't believe that this is the right solution (and there isn't really enough proposed plain text to call it a solution just yet), but it is more serious than the meso-american proposals that are chronologically not acceptable.
The reason for comparing it with that is that it was also proposed by recognised scholars.
(16-06-2020, 07:04 PM)LisaFaginDavis wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.1) he distinguishes six, rather than four, gallows, distinguishing the variants of EVA-p and EVA-f in which the cross-stroke ends with a slight curl. Linguists: what do you make of that, in terms of frequency and word-position?
Here he is just following the v101 alphabet.