24-06-2024, 08:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 24-06-2024, 08:46 PM by Bluetoes101.)
I was looking at this today, I can't help with the language at all, but I can chip in with some image analysis
I think there's signs that this was not a "d" made into an "m" or the other way around "only". Which would account for the differing interpretations. If you ignore the m as it is written directly above this m from the new glyph you are left with a T shape and a \ shape. If you draw the basic m shape back in it is difficult to account for the "cross stroke" (top of T), the right point of it would mean doing the "flick" of the m in the middle, the left point requires having something like "nnn".
This would lead me to believe the "d" was written over the "m" (but it is not).
Looking at the "d" shape, it is not fluid, ink/equipment/scan (I did try 3) could account for this, I don't know, but the \ is floating, which from what I have seen isn't unusual, however it is a bit odd to have one "d" done this was directly below another done a different way. I'm not talking about stylistically or alterations in handwriting, but whoever did this looks to have been very unsure while doing it as there are several possible alterations as they went, maybe they were just having "technical difficulties" with the writing equipment. I do though think it is evident that opting to not copy the "d" from above, which would have been a far more elegant solution, is telling and ultimately I concluded that if this is a "d" and "m" the "m" was written over the top of the "d", it explains the weird cross stroke on top of the "d", why they did not fill in the "d" and why the "m" was not a match with the one done above.
For what it is worth, I thought that the \ shape might be an attempt to signify another letter between the "m" and "e", as we would write a letter above if we didn't leave enough room to squeeze the letter in to correct spelling, and the "d" was never a "d" at all. But I think that idea is above my station... so I will stick with "this is m" not "d"
![[Image: SiJgA2p.png]](https://i.imgur.com/SiJgA2p.png)
I think there's signs that this was not a "d" made into an "m" or the other way around "only". Which would account for the differing interpretations. If you ignore the m as it is written directly above this m from the new glyph you are left with a T shape and a \ shape. If you draw the basic m shape back in it is difficult to account for the "cross stroke" (top of T), the right point of it would mean doing the "flick" of the m in the middle, the left point requires having something like "nnn".
This would lead me to believe the "d" was written over the "m" (but it is not).
Looking at the "d" shape, it is not fluid, ink/equipment/scan (I did try 3) could account for this, I don't know, but the \ is floating, which from what I have seen isn't unusual, however it is a bit odd to have one "d" done this was directly below another done a different way. I'm not talking about stylistically or alterations in handwriting, but whoever did this looks to have been very unsure while doing it as there are several possible alterations as they went, maybe they were just having "technical difficulties" with the writing equipment. I do though think it is evident that opting to not copy the "d" from above, which would have been a far more elegant solution, is telling and ultimately I concluded that if this is a "d" and "m" the "m" was written over the top of the "d", it explains the weird cross stroke on top of the "d", why they did not fill in the "d" and why the "m" was not a match with the one done above.
For what it is worth, I thought that the \ shape might be an attempt to signify another letter between the "m" and "e", as we would write a letter above if we didn't leave enough room to squeeze the letter in to correct spelling, and the "d" was never a "d" at all. But I think that idea is above my station... so I will stick with "this is m" not "d"