(11-08-2024, 01:51 AM)pfeaster wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I suppose it's possible that the transcriber may -- consciously or unconsciously -- have factored knowledge of which glyphs do and don't typically have spaces between them into decisions about which breaks to mark as ambiguous.
Lots of not-so-ambiguous spaces were ignored and spaces were added where they don't exist, to mark vertical offsets or very small spaces that were not recorder elsewhere: subjective choices, like attaching a floating glyph to the word on the right, because it feels right, not because it is written that way. I will publish my transliteration with much more detailed spacing information some day (if I ever finish it).
My hypothesis is that spaces are an artifact created by pauses in the generation process: the scribes had to look elsewhere to collect information and probably move their hand too, not only their eyes. The flow is extremely uneven, it can be seen in spaces, in the size of glyphs, and also in the base line, often broken. This is unparalleled in contemporary manuscripts. The process changed somewhat (or the scribes were more experienced) in Currier-B, it usually looks less choppy.