21-10-2024, 11:28 PM
(This post was last modified: 21-10-2024, 11:41 PM by Bluetoes101.)
Stolfi was right from what I have seen regarding "m" seeming to need an "a" or "o" precursor and "g" not so much, I believe this is because "m" acts like a fancy "r" and "g" acts like a fancy "d", or I suppose you could imply the same about "r" and "s" as more direct matches (alterations of the same glyph shape using \ or C as a base). [edit: Just read Renes response, yeah "g" could as easily be more like "y", I guess the overall point is just that is does not act like a glyph built up from "\" but one from "C"]
I don't see why they both couldn't represent something similar, but I have found one requires a/o more than the other. I guess you could say the same of English "ing" and "t(/s)ion" so whether they are in-clusters or just suffixes I don't know, I shall bow (plead?
) to the linguists
I don't see why they both couldn't represent something similar, but I have found one requires a/o more than the other. I guess you could say the same of English "ing" and "t(/s)ion" so whether they are in-clusters or just suffixes I don't know, I shall bow (plead?
) to the linguists