23-04-2025, 06:52 PM
(This post was last modified: 23-04-2025, 07:00 PM by Bluetoes101.)
I see what you are saying You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (and thank you for the data it is useful), I think of it a little differently though. I think the text was pre-arranged to look visually pleasing, I don't think they made it visually pleasing on the fly.
How would "many scribes" know what the original scribe found visually pleasing, or their preferences?
EDIT - My thoughts on repeating shapes would also be that they are probably not meaningless. Most text from the time I've seen goes to some length to fit more info into a space rather than less. My instinct would therefore be that "dan" >> "dain" "daiin" "daiiin" etc contain info beyond the scope of using "dan" only.
How would "many scribes" know what the original scribe found visually pleasing, or their preferences?
EDIT - My thoughts on repeating shapes would also be that they are probably not meaningless. Most text from the time I've seen goes to some length to fit more info into a space rather than less. My instinct would therefore be that "dan" >> "dain" "daiin" "daiiin" etc contain info beyond the scope of using "dan" only.