Why and how the text could be Bavarian

[JoJo_Jost]

I don’t have a problem with reverse readings per se, but I don’t get why you feel it’s easier than reading forward. Aiin or Niia are exactly the same as far as parsing choices go. Ai in , a ii n, or ni in, n ii a.

It’s clear that the e and I families exist with zero to four repetitions before a final ligature regardless which direction you read it in.

The e and I aren’t stand alone characters. Let’s say that each I or e simply indicate an addition or subtraction from the final character. Say n actually is an n, but in is actually m, iin is L, iiin is k.

Of course they could be part of a column row table with the number of i’s as the rows pointing to a single character, digraph or syllable… who knows?

I just don’t get the Reva being easier.

I know this is hard to understand, because, of course, you’re right from a logical standpoint.

Maybe put it this way: you start with many glyphs in “Eva,” and they all end with one of four different glyphs—y, n, r, or l—which covers 87% of all token endings. With “aiin,” for example, you might ask yourself, why do you even need to write the “n” in the last place? It just follows naturally.

The second point is, that they have so many different and unstructured beginnings in their cipher, all of which have to center around a single letter.

That’s “unusual”—

In Reva, the next glyph develops from each one with just one or two decisions, which corresponds to a normal structure, from simple to complex. The “n” from aiin is the description of the niia family here, and that’s where it becomes important.

But later on, I’ll publish the complete structure of the VMS from Reva’s perspective; then you’ll see how uniform everything suddenly becomes. And at least for me, I’ve never been able to figure it out that clearly—and logically—moving forward.