I have absolutely no problem with the fact that it’s a different language. I just wanted to point out, in a friendly way, that the approach you’ve described won’t lead anywhere, and to explain why. Not because I want to refute your theory—I’d go about that differently (the topic of substitution and language)—but to save you some time. If you don’t approach this kind of thing consistently, you can read just about anything into it. And countless people have already done that in countless languages—but no matter how convinced they were, it was all nonsense.
You should look for a consistent solution. I don’t mind that a glyph can represent multiple characters, but then that has to be consistent as well. And that’s where it simply falls apart… it always has—as soon as you rely on substitution
Prove me wrong, and I'd be happy... honestly!
You should look for a consistent solution. I don’t mind that a glyph can represent multiple characters, but then that has to be consistent as well. And that’s where it simply falls apart… it always has—as soon as you rely on substitution
Prove me wrong, and I'd be happy... honestly!