27-11-2025, 01:19 PM
Is there a good paleographic write-up of how the script was formed? I went looking for this some time ago and did not find it. And, either way, a discussion about it would clarify some things!
s: This thread was originally about whether or not strokes over s and sh all represent the same elements of the script or not. We might not all agree, but a description of the strokes forming other letters might offer a clue. (For my part: s are all the same letter, sh has a variety of modifiers over it; I'm working on exactly what I think that variation is and writing it up.)
n: If that is a minim and a swash, that would be evidence towards the hypothesis it is just an ornate i
g, m: There is a structural component to the debate if these letters are variants or letters in their own right; is that a descender or a swash? The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that y is a with a swash offers a suggestive parallel here.
d: It sounds like we don't agree how this letter was formed, what relationship it might have to other letters with an e base, and how it fits into the script.
I'm quite sure there's more! And deviations by the scribes (or, without triggering that debate outside its dedicated thread, anyone else who may have written on the manuscript later) may tell us something too.
I take Lisa's observation that there is no professional agreement and that this is a hard nut to crack to heart. But that's never stopped us before!
s: This thread was originally about whether or not strokes over s and sh all represent the same elements of the script or not. We might not all agree, but a description of the strokes forming other letters might offer a clue. (For my part: s are all the same letter, sh has a variety of modifiers over it; I'm working on exactly what I think that variation is and writing it up.)
n: If that is a minim and a swash, that would be evidence towards the hypothesis it is just an ornate i
g, m: There is a structural component to the debate if these letters are variants or letters in their own right; is that a descender or a swash? The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. that y is a with a swash offers a suggestive parallel here.
d: It sounds like we don't agree how this letter was formed, what relationship it might have to other letters with an e base, and how it fits into the script.
I'm quite sure there's more! And deviations by the scribes (or, without triggering that debate outside its dedicated thread, anyone else who may have written on the manuscript later) may tell us something too.
I take Lisa's observation that there is no professional agreement and that this is a hard nut to crack to heart. But that's never stopped us before!