Two things have been getting to me while I've been transliterating page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. using Edith Sherwood AVA's alphabet.
First in general, the long-tailed a's which are EVA g or AVA a. Those were used in Mercantesca to mean something different from the a's with no tail.
The other thing that bugs me is the EVA k (ending joined c) and EVA q (looks like a 4) are also in Mercantesca, and not really seen anywhere else.
I haven't seen anyone explore this path much before.
As I've been transliterating the page script as AVA text I've added a few modifications to try and help make things easier to see from the text.
Doing that seems to strike a balance between readability and representing what's on the page.
From f99r You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
AVA (modified) transliterated:
Is that taking representative transliteration too far?
My thinking here is that this form of transliteration should make it easier to recognise Merchantesca or Italian-style abbreviations within the text.
First in general, the long-tailed a's which are EVA g or AVA a. Those were used in Mercantesca to mean something different from the a's with no tail.
The other thing that bugs me is the EVA k (ending joined c) and EVA q (looks like a 4) are also in Mercantesca, and not really seen anywhere else.
I haven't seen anyone explore this path much before.
As I've been transliterating the page script as AVA text I've added a few modifications to try and help make things easier to see from the text.
| Script | EVA | AVA | Transliteration |
| a with tail | g | a | a/ |
| c-c | ch | c | c |
| c-'-c | sh | t | {c'} |
| c-p-c | cp | ? | {cp} |
| 4 | q | v | (per) |
Doing that seems to strike a balance between readability and representing what's on the page.
From f99r You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
AVA (modified) transliterated:
Code:
<f99r.15> <%>pceoba/ oleoba/ <!gap> bam {cp}eea/ l{c’}oi bai {cp}eoi oiam rar
<f99r.16> raro{c’}a/ {c’}or s {c’}or {c’}eoi tloi {c’}eoi (per)oeoi {c’}oi tloi {cl}oi {ctl}ora/
<f99r.17> bceor cr ai a/{ctl}a/ otleoi {ctl}or oram cor (per)otleeor cora/
<f99r.18> (per)otleor coi {c’}loi ceea/ coba/ {ctl}oi bam otleoia/ bam {ctl}a/<$>Is that taking representative transliteration too far?
My thinking here is that this form of transliteration should make it easier to recognise Merchantesca or Italian-style abbreviations within the text.