21-03-2021, 07:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 21-03-2021, 07:13 PM by MichelleL11.
Edit Reason: adding final disclaimer
)
Hi, Rob:
Thanks for the work and the direction toward Gimp in order to zoom in more effectively.
So, what do you think about the positional patterns being responsible for the chaotic behavior of EVA <f> (orange) and EVA <p> (green) in the time series data? I'm inserting the relevant table below from Matlach et al. for reference.
I think it’s possible, and it’s certainly takes more than just showing up at certain positions within words - otherwise EVA <q> and EVA <y> would have been “chaotic” and that doesn’t seem to be the case.
I mean, if time sequence analysis measures the interval between one use of a "glyph" and the next use of the same "glyph" and these two show different behavior than the rest (arguably EVA <t> (pink) is on the edge and EVA <k> (blue) is the same as the rest) doesn't that support trying to determine what the basis for this is? This is data to show that these two glyphs were utilized differently than the others in construction of the text and figuring out why could help understand how it was done.
Although I understand the ligature arguments, I need some convincing that this unusual behavior can be explained by combining otherwise individual glyphs together.
Do you (particularly after putting together the graphics) or anyone else have thoughts about what this data might mean?
Just as a quick reminder -- "chaotic" = normal behavior for symbols in natural speech and the non-chaotic behavior of almost all the VM glyphs is not normal. In other words, two of the glyphs that look most outwardly "unusual" are actually behaving in this data set closer to a normal "letter" than any of the other glyphs.
Thanks for the work and the direction toward Gimp in order to zoom in more effectively.
So, what do you think about the positional patterns being responsible for the chaotic behavior of EVA <f> (orange) and EVA <p> (green) in the time series data? I'm inserting the relevant table below from Matlach et al. for reference.
I think it’s possible, and it’s certainly takes more than just showing up at certain positions within words - otherwise EVA <q> and EVA <y> would have been “chaotic” and that doesn’t seem to be the case.
I mean, if time sequence analysis measures the interval between one use of a "glyph" and the next use of the same "glyph" and these two show different behavior than the rest (arguably EVA <t> (pink) is on the edge and EVA <k> (blue) is the same as the rest) doesn't that support trying to determine what the basis for this is? This is data to show that these two glyphs were utilized differently than the others in construction of the text and figuring out why could help understand how it was done.
Although I understand the ligature arguments, I need some convincing that this unusual behavior can be explained by combining otherwise individual glyphs together.
Do you (particularly after putting together the graphics) or anyone else have thoughts about what this data might mean?
Just as a quick reminder -- "chaotic" = normal behavior for symbols in natural speech and the non-chaotic behavior of almost all the VM glyphs is not normal. In other words, two of the glyphs that look most outwardly "unusual" are actually behaving in this data set closer to a normal "letter" than any of the other glyphs.