26-02-2026, 02:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 26-02-2026, 02:20 PM by Jorge_Stolfi.)
Furthermore, the realization that ir is often a scribal error for iin now made me wonder whether a similar story may hold for m.
Specifically, I conjecture that m is a handwriting variant of il, where the separate l (two strokes, i and the tail) is replaced by the loopy tail (one stroke) connected to the previous i.
This story is more complicated than r <-> in, because it requires substantial change in the writing order and direction of the l. But the savings of strokes and space may have led to its "invention" (presumably by the Author himself) and adoption by the Scribe.
However, the prevalence of m at the end of the line suggests that the Scribe was aware of the equivalence il = m and chose to use the latter, on his own, mostly when he was running out of space.
If this conjecture is true, then the coda elements {m}, {im}, and {iim} would be replaced by {il}, {iil} and {iiil}, now parallel to {in},{iin}, and {iiin}. A satisfying increase in symmetry.
On the other hand, that would raise the question of whether l is exclusively a dealer, or it can be a coda {l} all by itself, like {n}. Which would create the same ambiguity that I had to hack away in the case of {r}...
All the best, --stolfi
Specifically, I conjecture that m is a handwriting variant of il, where the separate l (two strokes, i and the tail) is replaced by the loopy tail (one stroke) connected to the previous i.
This story is more complicated than r <-> in, because it requires substantial change in the writing order and direction of the l. But the savings of strokes and space may have led to its "invention" (presumably by the Author himself) and adoption by the Scribe.
However, the prevalence of m at the end of the line suggests that the Scribe was aware of the equivalence il = m and chose to use the latter, on his own, mostly when he was running out of space.
If this conjecture is true, then the coda elements {m}, {im}, and {iim} would be replaced by {il}, {iil} and {iiil}, now parallel to {in},{iin}, and {iiin}. A satisfying increase in symmetry.
On the other hand, that would raise the question of whether l is exclusively a dealer, or it can be a coda {l} all by itself, like {n}. Which would create the same ambiguity that I had to hack away in the case of {r}...
All the best, --stolfi