28-09-2016, 08:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 28-09-2016, 08:13 PM by ThomasCoon.)
(28-09-2016, 07:35 PM)-JKP- wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I do too. I have for a long time.
The problem is that not all the glyphs appear to follow this pattern. It looks like monoglyphs, diglyphs, and possibly even some triglyphs may all have been used, and it also appears as if some of the diglyphs might function as monoglyphs in certain positions (the "o" being one example). I've been wrestling with unsnarling this alphabet soup and it hasn't been easy.
I agree 110%.
It is actually striking - I've worked independently and concluded all of those exact points (hence my You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. thread). Please don't let my statistics fool you: I don't believe everything is digraphs either. In my opinion there are also monographs, most likely <d>, <y>, <s>, and also some trigraph patterns (tentatively I'm considering <che>, <oke>, <ote>).
Surprisingly I also believe that some diglyphs may function as monglyphs, and exactly as you said, I also believe it has something to do with <o>:
<od> = <d>?
<ot> = <t>?
<ok> = <k>?
<os> = <s>?
(Or maybe these are 8 separate patterns that all encode a different letter. I am familiar with the "Alphabet soup" that you mentioned because I have been swimming in it also.)
What are your thoughts?