I see what you are saying You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. (and thank you for the data it is useful), I think of it a little differently though. I think the text was pre-arranged to look visually pleasing, I don't think they made it visually pleasing on the fly. 

How would "many scribes" know what the original scribe found visually pleasing, or their preferences?

EDIT - My thoughts on repeating shapes would also be that they are probably not meaningless. Most text from the time I've seen goes to some length to fit more info into a space rather than less. My instinct would therefore be that "dan" >> "dain" "daiin" "daiiin" etc contain info beyond the scope of using "dan" only.

I have been looking a little into "B Language". I'm not totally happy with my mappings still in general, but either way there is a significant drop of conformance between A and B, so I can look at that. 

The result for B is 89.8%. For these tests I used the whole of Q13.
If I remove the "ed" allowance (not used for "A language") this drops to 64%. 

I have built upon my code to make it a bit more useful, it now provides me a plain-text report of non-conformances. This is that list for Q13.
(Top hits shown - click for full)

Most Frequent Non-Conforming Plain-Text Pairs:
  lk: 264
  lt: 35
  hd: 22

Most Frequent Glyphs Involved in Non-Conformance:
  l: 365
  k: 288
  d: 66
  t: 45



The 2 main changes from A to B that I can see (other than "ed") is a change in the use of EVA: "l" and an sudden emergence of EVA: "chd".

It seems to me that EVA: "l" takes on a new role in "B language". My initial thought was that maybe its use mirrored "y" now, they seem to be related at least in shape and on the face of it "l" seems to precede gallows a lot now.. however this caused so many other problems the conformance score actually got worse. What "l" actually seems to be doing is acting as EVA: "o".

If I plug that functionality in, and make an assumption that "chd" is "something+e+d" the new conformance score is 94.7% with no real red flags in the report. 

Admittedly the mapping is a bit haywire now and needs some cleaning up, it is probably too flimsy to make any real conclusions from but I thought this was interesting anyway. I'll post something a bit more substantial once I have cleaned up stuff best I can.

(03-05-2025, 07:08 PM)Bluetoes101 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The 2 main changes from A to B that I can see (other than "ed") is a change in the use of EVA

There are many more differences between languages A and B. Here is one. Lately I have been looking at the curious characters  ckh  and  cth. I have found it useful to generate matrices of frequences of these and sorted by prefix and suffix. For language A I got


For language B I got


One significant difference is that the majority of words in language A that have these characters start with them without any prefix ( and especially with  cth  ). Their frequency in language A is ~2.6 times that in language B.