(30-09-2025, 07:55 PM)LisaFaginDavis wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I examined every glyph on every leaf. I'm afraid you're just going to have to believe me even if you don't accept my findings.
So, if I understand you correctly: after examining every glyph on every leaf, the only significant distinction you identify is the variation in the length of the final flourish of the iin-glyph group?
To me, this seems less like evidence for multiple scribes and more like an argument against such a hypothesis.
Anyway, didn't you wrote in your paper from 2020: "I initially annotated several different characters, but, after spending some time looking closely at different glyphs, I decided to focus initially on the single-loop gallows glyph that, in v101, is arbitrarily called “h” (the substitutions rarely have a semantic correspondence to the relevant glyph but are for convenience only). Once the annotations were complete, I used the faceted search to study the annotated [h] characters by comparing unknown hands with known samples such as Scribe 1 and Scribe ⒉" and later "My preliminary results identify five hands ..." (Lisa Fagin Davis 2020, p. 2)?
If you truly examined every glyph on every leaf, why does your paper refer to preliminary results and why did you wrote only about the k-glyph as well as the iin-glyph group only? This seems inconsistent with the claim of having conducted an exhaustive analysis.