08-08-2025, 01:44 PM
(08-08-2025, 12:04 PM)Stefan Wirtz_2 wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Why should [ p and f be just calligraphic variants of t and k ] ? Is there any proof for that?
No proof, of course, but a good hint: the fact that the "puffs" p and f are very common on the head lines of parags, while the "taks" t and k are less common there.
If the puffs and taks are distinct letters, then we must conclude that (1) the head lines of parags are in a different "language" than the rest of the parag -- a language that differs mainly in p/f replacing t/k; and (2) the break between head line and second line is semantically significant (rather than being simply the point where the Scribe reached the right rail).
One problem with these alternative explanations is that parag head lines are often quite a bit shorter than normal because of intruding figures. See for example f3r. Parag P3 has a puff near the end of its head line, which is almost full length. The head lines of P1 and P2 are only half as wide, and yet there are no puffs in their second lines.
As for the alphabet being already too small: we don't know that. There is no reason to assume that each glyph is an independent letter. ee, eee, ii, iii, Che, Chy, etc may all be polygraphs that work as distinct letters (phonemes) of the alphabet, unrelated to single e, i, Ch. Like "ch" and "zz" in Italian, "μπ" in Greek, "rr" in Spanish, and tons of other examples in practically every language.
All the best, --jorge