f57v

[Sam G]

The third letter in the sequence also changes from j in the first iteration to d in the other three, and I think on the tenth symbol in the sequence the "apostrophe" is becoming more attached to the rest of the glyph as one goes from the first iteration of the sequence to the fourth.

Stolfi talks about this sequence a bit here:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

PAGE You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
 Page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. contains a B-language paragraph and a circular diagram
 with four rings of text, surrounding four figures and some phrases
 at odd angles.
 
 The third ring of text, from the center out (f57v:3) contains a list
 of 17 isolated "letters", repeated 4 times with slight variations.
 An extra-wide gap at 10:30 and an isolated word at 11:00 outside the
 diagram strongly suggest the sequence starts there.

   o  l  j  r  v  x  k  m  f  &L t  r  &H &G y  &I &Y
   o  l  d  r  v  x  k  m  f  &L t  r  &H &G y  c  &Y
   o  l  d  r  v  x  k  m  p  &L t  r  &H &G y  c  &Y
   o  l  d  r  v  x  k  m  p  &L t  r  &H &G y  c  &Y
   -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
   18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
   35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
   52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68  

 As Dennis Mardle observed, these variations suggest that the pairs
 <j> and <d>, <f> and <p>, and <&I> and <c> are equivalent (or at
 least closely related).  On the other hand, the consistent
 occurrence of <k> and <t> in their respective places argues for them
 being distinct.
 
 Note that charater 16 and its periods have a well-developed
 ligature to the right, so the reading <&I>/<c> seems more
 correct than <i>/<e>.

 
Also, here's a comparison image I made a while back if anyone wants it: