17-11-2022, 01:58 AM
Questions about the glyph set are endless. In order to do any research at all – other than on questions about the glyph set – it is necessary to make assumptions.
I note how Marco and Emma May dealt with this matter in their joint paper on work-breaks:
The script comprises a number of distinct glyphs but also some which may be ligatures of others. Many glyphs are rare and some are unique. The majority of the text is written with a smaller subset of glyphs which occur more than fifty times. The number of glyphs in this subset differs according to the researcher, with counts ranging from 18 to 29 glyphs…
For the purposes of this paper we adopt the definition of a glyph as a stroke or set of strokes which are typically contiguous while also being usually separated from other strokes or glyphs. This allows for a set of glyphs to be constructed visually without an underlying theory on the working of the script.
I note how Marco and Emma May dealt with this matter in their joint paper on work-breaks:
The script comprises a number of distinct glyphs but also some which may be ligatures of others. Many glyphs are rare and some are unique. The majority of the text is written with a smaller subset of glyphs which occur more than fifty times. The number of glyphs in this subset differs according to the researcher, with counts ranging from 18 to 29 glyphs…
For the purposes of this paper we adopt the definition of a glyph as a stroke or set of strokes which are typically contiguous while also being usually separated from other strokes or glyphs. This allows for a set of glyphs to be constructed visually without an underlying theory on the working of the script.
This is the only possible way forward on a daily basis: for the purposes of research we must adopt a (justifiable) set of "analysable units." I have generally adopted the same set as Marco and Emma May and think of it as a standard. They fully acknowledge that the glyph set may be more complex, but there must always be "for purposes of this paper" or there is no paper at all.
I am very open to the possibility the text is not an alphabet, or even a text of letters, but it has been presented as one and I tackle it like that in the first instance - amongst other lines of attack. The application of a Vord Paradigm (the start of this thread) is just one tool.
I am very open to the possibility the text is not an alphabet, or even a text of letters, but it has been presented as one and I tackle it like that in the first instance - amongst other lines of attack. The application of a Vord Paradigm (the start of this thread) is just one tool.