(20-10-2024, 04:23 PM)Koen G wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It looks like Stolfi leaned towards seeing EVA-m and g as shortened versions of in-clusters. To me this feels right intuitively. But I wonder, has anyone looked into this further? Are there any objections or better solutions?
Eva-m m and Eva-g g appear in different contexts.
g looks like y with an extra loop. It could also be seen as a combination of d and y .
Replacing g with y generally results in valid words, but replacing g with dy does not, because g often follows d.
So, my favourite hypothesis is that g is just a beautified version of y that is used preferably at line ends.
Replacing g with in (or similar) does not generate a lot of valid words.
A similar argument can be made for m . However, it is a bit less straightforward. There are a lot more m (over 1000) than g (around 160).
It might seen that m could be a beautified version of r , but the parallel with g suggests that it could rather be a beautification of l . Both options lead to valid words, if one were to replace the m .
The thing that leaves me more in doubt here, is that there are zodiac labels that end with m, and the equivalent words ending with r or l also exist as zodiac labels. (This is certainly true for r, but I am not sure about l ).
This was already discussed here in the past.
Neither the pro nor the con arguments are very compelling, but for me these are the more likely explanations.