23-05-2022, 06:25 PM
(This post was last modified: 23-05-2022, 06:28 PM by MichelleL11.
Edit Reason: clarification
)
Although I acknowledge this does not help the situation in any way, shape, or form, I do think it is worthwhile to note that this ambiguity could also run with the scribe and/or encipherer. That is, you would imagine that, depending on how precisely the process is working (through wax tablets or loose sheets or direct from plain text, etc.) a certain "expectation" for word structure would be built in for the scribes and/or the encipherer as well.
Finally, how much consistency for spaces (something that arguably hadn't yet been "built in" to the visual tradition) could truly be expected at this time and place?
This work was definitely useful to strongly connect a spacing certainty level to particular bigrams -- but whether this is a function of the way that alleged plaintext was transcribed or the way the cipher text was transliterated is difficult to say. I would suspect there's a bit of both involved. I am going to keep thinking if anything else concrete can be concluded -- but just wanted to add this admittedly frustrating observation into the mix.
EDIT: In the interim, I see this issue has been brought up by Emma as well, in her part 2.
Finally, how much consistency for spaces (something that arguably hadn't yet been "built in" to the visual tradition) could truly be expected at this time and place?
This work was definitely useful to strongly connect a spacing certainty level to particular bigrams -- but whether this is a function of the way that alleged plaintext was transcribed or the way the cipher text was transliterated is difficult to say. I would suspect there's a bit of both involved. I am going to keep thinking if anything else concrete can be concluded -- but just wanted to add this admittedly frustrating observation into the mix.
EDIT: In the interim, I see this issue has been brought up by Emma as well, in her part 2.