30-01-2025, 01:07 AM
(This post was last modified: 30-01-2025, 01:30 AM by Bluetoes101.)
Thank you very much Patrick,
I was not aware of much of this. Unfortunately the first link is broken, but I look forward to reading your work, that links ok.
I think I started out with a work that believed glyphs band together and so followed suit. I don't think I align with that so much anymore, but I do believe the core glyphs were paired into curve-built and line-built alternatives. I don't know how it started or why (hatchmarks for example) but I do believe the glyphs can be sorted, my sorting is much like CLS and I would imagine anyone who subscribes to the "some are lines, some are curves" way of thinking. However I don't think "like attracts like". My sorting also abandons CLS logic for one glyph, because it better represents the my system.
EVA: d. In my opinion is not a shape starting with a curve, it only ends with one. Which is weird, because the rest of the "c-built" glyphs are not this way. Obviously I have no evidence to back any of this up, but something I wondered when analysing the relationships of this glyph was;
![[Image: 88.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/C57xyyWm/88.jpg)
Did the idea of a line based "d" just not really work, it got more and more curve-like until the result was too hard to tell apart maybe. Just chucking a ball at the target, no idea of facts obviously. Some parts of the early manuscript make me think "d" was always a bit of an issue. The top paragraph of "f2r" would be my prime example.. look at how many different attempts happen in different ways.
The key idea to my system is switching between curve to line and line to curve, I don't think whoever wrote this text cared about camps of "c" and camps of "l" anymore. "ol" and "or" make up over 8000 pairings, for this alone I don't think the idea of separating curves and lines by "a" came into their thinking. While this idea was born out of CLS it has become quite distant in some areas.
I was not aware of much of this. Unfortunately the first link is broken, but I look forward to reading your work, that links ok.
I think I started out with a work that believed glyphs band together and so followed suit. I don't think I align with that so much anymore, but I do believe the core glyphs were paired into curve-built and line-built alternatives. I don't know how it started or why (hatchmarks for example) but I do believe the glyphs can be sorted, my sorting is much like CLS and I would imagine anyone who subscribes to the "some are lines, some are curves" way of thinking. However I don't think "like attracts like". My sorting also abandons CLS logic for one glyph, because it better represents the my system.
EVA: d. In my opinion is not a shape starting with a curve, it only ends with one. Which is weird, because the rest of the "c-built" glyphs are not this way. Obviously I have no evidence to back any of this up, but something I wondered when analysing the relationships of this glyph was;
Did the idea of a line based "d" just not really work, it got more and more curve-like until the result was too hard to tell apart maybe. Just chucking a ball at the target, no idea of facts obviously. Some parts of the early manuscript make me think "d" was always a bit of an issue. The top paragraph of "f2r" would be my prime example.. look at how many different attempts happen in different ways.
The key idea to my system is switching between curve to line and line to curve, I don't think whoever wrote this text cared about camps of "c" and camps of "l" anymore. "ol" and "or" make up over 8000 pairings, for this alone I don't think the idea of separating curves and lines by "a" came into their thinking. While this idea was born out of CLS it has become quite distant in some areas.