14-08-2026, 07:12 PM
(14-08-2026, 01:31 PM)Grove wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(02-08-2026, 09:50 PM)Jorge_Stolfi wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.A glyph that is that rare can be assumed to be an "error" or simply a variant of some similar glyph. It will not be this simplification that will prevent us from cracking the manuscript.
It is doubtful that assuming the glyph anomalies are some sort of simple variation of similar glyphs will prevent us from seeing the underlying text (assuming there is something), but there are hundreds of rare glyphs that often look like they are created from parts of other glyphs not normally joined together. The fact that so many exist seems like it serves a purpose to me, rather than an error. I get that you’re saying they can be treated as an error because they don’t impact most of the content on a page but I think they could help as a focal point for some investigation to try and break what makes them necessary to show up where they do.
Not that anyone has ever succeeded at this approach, but anomalies really can be helpful.
Indeed, see my post on the Saltzman paper..