[split] Jorge's Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings

[Jorge_Stolfi]

makes me wonder if we have a symbol between r and n ... There's a fair few r in the manuscript transliterations that the modifications start in the middle rather than the top (though much more rare)

I believe that the Author conceived the r glyph as consisting of two separate pen strokes, one for the i body (from top to bottom) and another for the plume (from the top of the i, starting towards NE and going counterclockwise, with gradually reducing pressure).   (I believe that s was supposed to be the same, only with an e body instead of i.)

And I believe that the n was conceived by the Author as two separate pen strokes too, drawn the same way; only with the plume starting at the bottom of the i rather than at the top.  That would result in a sharp ~90 degree corner at the bottom.  However, there is no need to lift the pen between the two strokes.  So in practice the n got drawn as a single stroke, resulting in a rounded corner at the bottom.  When drawn with little care, the i stroke further morphed into an e, and thus the n became a b.  

So my criterion for distinguishing the two glyphs is whether they were originally drawn in one stroke (which I read as n) or two strokes (which I read as r).  If the latter, I don't care whether the the plume starts at the top of the i, of somewhat lower than that; I accept that as normal handwriting variation.  And I tend to view b not as a distinct glyph, but only as a variant of n in sloppy handwriting.

All the best, --stolfi