-JKP- > 06-02-2019, 08:35 PM
Davidsch > 09-02-2019, 01:45 PM
-JKP- > 09-02-2019, 08:34 PM
Quote:davidsch wrote: ...the [q] can not be separated form [qo]: The 133 times are errors and bad transcripts. (there are more arguments but too extensive for here)...
DONJCH > 10-02-2019, 06:39 AM
Davidsch > 10-02-2019, 05:07 PM
nickpelling > 11-02-2019, 12:32 AM
(09-02-2019, 08:34 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.[font=Sans-serif]If [font=Eva][font=Sans-serif][font=Eva]q[/font][/font]o were a coherent entity (and ONLY supposed to be a biglyph), then I don't think the macron glyph-shapes would have been added next to q in several places (if the VMS macron has the same function as in Latin languages, then it represents omitted letters between q and "o").[/font][/font]
-JKP- > 11-02-2019, 02:40 AM
Wladimir D > 11-02-2019, 08:24 AM
nickpelling > 11-02-2019, 01:16 PM
(11-02-2019, 08:24 AM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In my opinion, it is necessary to take into account that when writing “4o” different diacritical marks are used, and in different positions, which can mean different meanings. I tend to support the point of view of JKP.
nablator > 11-02-2019, 04:24 PM
(11-02-2019, 01:16 PM)nickpelling Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For the qo + curved macron/overbar, the four examples are all in Currier A pages (as I recall), so it seems likely to me to be an early writing system experiment that was dropped along the way.I count a few more on f. 5v.3, 19r.7, 22v.1, 49r.2, 49r.14, 49r.16, 49v.10 (or 20 if the first column is counted separately), 87r.15, and only one in Currier B: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..
Quote:If it was a universal mark or part of the system (as you seem to assume), we'd expect to see it throughout the text: but we don't.If the purpose is not to confuse would-be decipherers - there is an even more dubious round macron on daiin on line f49r.15 - rarity would be a problem only if there were any reason to assume that these rare occurrences all represent a common pattern in the underlying language and that this pattern can only be expressed in this way, or, if several ways are possible, that equal (or a fair share of) opportunity would be given to all of them... That's a lot of assumptions.