13-09-2016, 03:11 AM
Emma,
Sorry, the thread has moved on so this may seem out of order. I was thinking more that since the alphabet itself is believed to have been derived in the first instance from hieroglyphic forms, so an alternative system might have been created to represent a series of hieroglyphs or other logograms by a limited set of forms - either to roughly approximate the sound of each, or to represent each by a simpler form.
In some medieval Egyptian works we find Voynich-like glyphs as a sort of mysterious writing, and again in a letter sent to Kircher (from Lyons, actually) where there are three "4"-like glyphs in a row - recalling the "thrice great" sequence in hieratic.
It wasn't an argument, but at the same time I wasn't speaking about abjads either. It seems logical to suppose some such system would have been used by people like Pieresec or Kircher - their personal notes surely wouldn't have reproduced every hieroglphic in full detail.
However - this is just as clarification, not an effort to derail.
Sorry, the thread has moved on so this may seem out of order. I was thinking more that since the alphabet itself is believed to have been derived in the first instance from hieroglyphic forms, so an alternative system might have been created to represent a series of hieroglyphs or other logograms by a limited set of forms - either to roughly approximate the sound of each, or to represent each by a simpler form.
In some medieval Egyptian works we find Voynich-like glyphs as a sort of mysterious writing, and again in a letter sent to Kircher (from Lyons, actually) where there are three "4"-like glyphs in a row - recalling the "thrice great" sequence in hieratic.
It wasn't an argument, but at the same time I wasn't speaking about abjads either. It seems logical to suppose some such system would have been used by people like Pieresec or Kircher - their personal notes surely wouldn't have reproduced every hieroglphic in full detail.
However - this is just as clarification, not an effort to derail.