ReneZ > 30-01-2025, 11:22 PM
Mauro > 31-01-2025, 12:06 AM
(30-01-2025, 01:47 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@Mauro what do you need from me transcription-cleaning wise (is this even a term or did I just make it up?..)
Until now I have been using the below as a "whole manuscript" base check
#=IVTFF EvaT 2.0 M 3
# Extracted from LSI_ivtff_0d.txt
# Version 2a of 02/02/2023
My preference however is, very strongly, with Rene's transcription "LZ v. 3a" The other was just easier for bulk conformance checks.
My code is set up to deal with some things in this transcription, however ambiguity, extended eva etc, I was dealing with myself.
Over 10 pages this was fine (I felt), but going beyond that does my code need to account for this in some way? I'm guessing "delete" is the usual option.. I doubt this makes a massive difference overall, but things like "is this a, or o?" when a or o make my system work.. its a bit painful to say "delete". Moreover I probably slightly disagree with Rene on maybe 1 glyph per page on average, but others can be (and usually are) several, it adds up.
oshfdk > 31-01-2025, 05:22 AM
(30-01-2025, 02:09 AM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I expressed an idea based on Tiltmans words, then went off on some brain adventure for no reason.
I have removed "X" from the system. I have gone back to thinking "y" is sometimes a stand in for "a" or maybe "o". It is now my 3rd "Switch".
I feel like I searched my entire house for my keys, then found them in my pocket. Maybe the "l/y" idea chucked me sideways, but while I think they are related via glyph creation/pairing, the function is that "l" belongs with glyphs made from lines, "y" is a tailed "o" or/and "a". "q" "qo" still allude me. but are the final puzzle piece so it is close to submitting (.. and tearing to bits)
Battler > 31-01-2025, 08:00 AM
MarcoP > 31-01-2025, 08:52 AM
”Patrick Feaster” Wrote:cheeaiii (= eeeee+iiii) plus an ornamentation composed of complementary flourishes to flesh it out (with cheeaiii potentially becoming cheeaiin with its one obligatory final flourish, or chedaiin with a second flourish added in).
(29-01-2025, 08:45 PM)pfeaster Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.So I'd suggest there are really two competing hypotheses here:
1. One treating curves and lines as parts of unitary glyphs (e.g. Winkelmann, Cham, Bluetoes)
2. One treating curves and lines as separable elements (e.g., Alipov, Feaster)
oshfdk > 31-01-2025, 10:12 AM
(31-01-2025, 08:00 AM)Battler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For what it's worth, the bench could be the curved counter part of "a" - start writing on the bottom right, line or curve to the top left, then curve backwards. If you start with a line, you get "a", if you start with a curve, you very much get a bench.
pfeaster > 31-01-2025, 08:23 PM
(31-01-2025, 08:52 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Here are some of the main points as I understand them (I am ignoring gallows and ‘q’ and I may be misunderstanding something):
(31-01-2025, 08:52 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In a word, curvlets (e-sequences) typically precede minims (i-sequences). But later in the post there is a careful argument proposing that word spaces convey very little information, so the concept of precedence within words becomes redundant.
Aga Tentakulus > 31-01-2025, 10:47 PM
pfeaster > 01-02-2025, 01:18 AM
(31-01-2025, 10:47 PM)Aga Tentakulus Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The counterpart
Bluetoes101 > 01-02-2025, 01:30 AM