07-02-2021, 12:51 AM
I've gone back and forth about [qo], but from a paleographical perspective, they are clearly connected, and always so. [q] doesn't ligate with anything else, and is so rarely found alone that it seems an aberration when it occurs without [o]. And so in the article on the glyphset that I've got coming out at some point, I've considered [qo] as a single glyph, which means that the [o] in [qo] should not be "counted" as an [o]. That changes the glyph frequency fairly dramatically. The frequencey of [qo], however, is nearly the same as [q], which makes sense. What all of that might mean linguistically, if anything, is for others to determine!
Like many of you, I've also spent alot of time thinking about bridge-gallows and what they might signify...ligatures of multiple gallows seems plausible, although the fact that they almost always occur at the top of a page (or paragraph midpage on occasion) suggests that they are purely graphic entities with no semantic difference from the gallows that they connect. I'm really fascinated by those characters. They're really lovely from a graphic standpoint.
Like many of you, I've also spent alot of time thinking about bridge-gallows and what they might signify...ligatures of multiple gallows seems plausible, although the fact that they almost always occur at the top of a page (or paragraph midpage on occasion) suggests that they are purely graphic entities with no semantic difference from the gallows that they connect. I'm really fascinated by those characters. They're really lovely from a graphic standpoint.