30-10-2016, 07:30 PM
I think D'Imperio was figuring that k is to t as f is to p. But I don't buy her argument either. (I also think it's clear that k and t are not equivalent for other reasons.)
I don't think we can draw strong conclusions about equivalence of glyphs from this sequence, since we don't know what it is and how the use of the letters in it relates to how letters are used in the main text. Also, p and f are strange letters anyway, occurring most often as apparent embellishments in initial lines of paragraphs.
I don't think we can draw strong conclusions about equivalence of glyphs from this sequence, since we don't know what it is and how the use of the letters in it relates to how letters are used in the main text. Also, p and f are strange letters anyway, occurring most often as apparent embellishments in initial lines of paragraphs.