I re-read paragraph 3 of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.: “The Hatchmark Skeleton Model”. It contains a huge amount of information, so possibly a short summary would be helpful.
Here are some of the main points as I understand them (I am ignoring gallows and ‘q’ and I may be misunderstanding something):
I find the case of benches particularly interesting: ‘ch’ ch looks like ‘ee’ ee with something like a “macron” flourish:
The bench ‘ch’ ch can receive the plume flourish and become ‘sh’ Sh. It is not clear that the plume of sh should be regarded as the same as the head flourish that turns ‘e’ into ‘s’ and ‘i’ into ‘r’. I understand that ‘sh’ should be regarded as ‘ee’ with two stacked flourishes (macron and plume)? The left column of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. does show what appears to be the “plume” or “head flourish” as a standalone glyph (lines 6, 14, 21).
Is there any way that these two theories can be compared, so one can decide they respective merits and if one is “better” than the other?
Here are some of the main points as I understand them (I am ignoring gallows and ‘q’ and I may be misunderstanding something):
- Each word can be reduced to a skeleton consisting of curvlets (e-sequences) and minims (i-sequences) only. These sequences are referred to as “turns”.
- Words end with a hatchmark augmented by a flourish (e.g. ‘s’ or ‘n’ instead of final ‘e’ or ‘i’). More flourishes can appear before the end of the word. E.g. daiin=eeiiii (two turns), with a head flourish in the first position and a foot flourish in the last position; ‘a’ is resolved as an 'e+i' ligature.
- In a word, curvlets (e-sequences) typically precede minims (i-sequences). But later in the post there is a careful argument proposing that word spaces convey very little information, so the concept of precedence within words becomes redundant.
I find the case of benches particularly interesting: ‘ch’ ch looks like ‘ee’ ee with something like a “macron” flourish:
”Patrick Feaster” wrote:cheeaiii (= eeeee+iiii) plus an ornamentation composed of complementary flourishes to flesh it out (with cheeaiii potentially becoming cheeaiin with its one obligatory final flourish, or chedaiin with a second flourish added in).
The bench ‘ch’ ch can receive the plume flourish and become ‘sh’ Sh. It is not clear that the plume of sh should be regarded as the same as the head flourish that turns ‘e’ into ‘s’ and ‘i’ into ‘r’. I understand that ‘sh’ should be regarded as ‘ee’ with two stacked flourishes (macron and plume)? The left column of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. does show what appears to be the “plume” or “head flourish” as a standalone glyph (lines 6, 14, 21).
(29-01-2025, 08:45 PM)pfeaster wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So I'd suggest there are really two competing hypotheses here:
1. One treating curves and lines as parts of unitary glyphs (e.g. Winkelmann, Cham, Bluetoes)
2. One treating curves and lines as separable elements (e.g., Alipov, Feaster)
Is there any way that these two theories can be compared, so one can decide they respective merits and if one is “better” than the other?