cTh is a eTe?

[ololololo]

On f10v, I found one word that seems quite interesting to me.
   
Takahashi has this ShcTHey. But for some reason, it seems to me that interpreting the word here is more difficult. It could be sheTchy, sheTHHy, or sheTeey.
Given the possible relationship between the symbols e and c, as well as ee and ch, I would suggest that cTh (like other gallows on the pedestal) is simply a stylistic embellishment of the spelling ete, with the addition of a line crossing the gallows.

Interesting cases of spelling e and hangings can be found on f67r1:
   
In two cases, ep stands before a. If a = ei, then a good combination of epe would result.

What do you think?

[Grove]

I’m sure there are a number of cthh extended benches, but also can’t exclude any ea or efe ‘spellings’ either. As far as the difference between the glyphs c e and h, it might come down to how the horizontal line is applied. Does the scribe write down a pair of c’s and then the line to join them, do they write the horizontal and second c in one stroke?

[ololololo]

I’m sure there are a number of cthh extended benches, but also can’t exclude any ea or efe ‘spellings’ either. As far as the difference between the glyphs c e and h, it might come down to how the horizontal line is applied. Does the scribe write down a pair of c’s and then the line to join them, do they write the horizontal and second c in one stroke?

In the example f10v, I see that at least the right e is written with a single stroke and a line. It’s clear that the h is written after.

[Jorge_Stolfi]

As far as the difference between the glyphs c e and h, it might come down to how the horizontal line is applied. Does the scribe write down a pair of c’s and then the line to join them, do they write the horizontal and second c in one stroke?

I believe the second mode is the norm.  I see a few (very few) cases where the ligature fails to join to the first e, but it always joins neatly to the second e.

But the issue is more complicated if there was a global restoration pass that retraced most of the text.

All the best, --stolfi

[ololololo]

In total, there are about 50 gallows on the pedestal in astronomy.
In the other examples, these are examples of the ete type.
This may either confirm the equality cth = ete or indicate a “scribe’s error”...

[DjCatac]

Some say the dashes make a letter a capital

[Bluetoes101]

Some say the dashes make a letter a capital

I believe this is for being able to distinguish them in transliterations (also works well for custom fonts) rather than actually being a capital letter

cth cTh
cth    cTh

Personally I don't think both sides are "e", because "ete" is fine in "what follows what" according to my research on it, also "ee" is fine. 

My personal (unsupported) theory is that it might be "ae"
1. "ae" is mostly not a valid pairing 
2. "a+gallows(+e)" is mostly not a valid pairing 
3. "a+s(+e)" is mostly not a valid pairing (Sh)
                                                            
I think pulling this final line of "a" c\ up into c-- when "a" is followed by a gallows or s/e glyph may have allowed it in a system that otherwise doesn't, or maybe it just looked nicer. 
Also we have æ in Latin.

[JoJo_Jost]

I find the underlying concept behind olololo's idea interesting.

I'm increasingly viewing the “e” as a kind of counting system, just like the “i.” So it's not that letters are encoded with them, but rather, for example, columns in a table. e = 1, column 1 / ee = 2, column 2 / eee = 3, column 3 (to simplify it).

And since “e” and “ch” are similar, the connecting line across the “two” “e”s could simply be another dimension, e.g., 5. And the macron above it would then be 6...

As I said, this is a simplification, because the structure of the words tends to contradict this “simple” theory when viewed in this straightforward way. But in a slightly more complex form, it could be correct for certain reasons.

And of course, it suggests that the cipherer could theoretically write very, very quickly using this method...

[RadioFM]

(...)
I'm increasingly viewing the “e” as a kind of counting system, just like the “i.” So it's not that letters are encoded with them, but rather, for example, columns in a table. e = 1, column 1 / ee = 2, column 2 / eee = 3, column 3 (to simplify it).

And since “e” and “ch” are similar, the connecting line across the “two” “e”s could simply be another dimension, e.g., 5. And the macron above it would then be 6...

As I said, this is a simplification, because the structure of the words tends to contradict this “simple” theory when viewed in this straightforward way. But in a slightly more complex form, it could be correct for certain reasons.
(...)

So would these two labels differ by one or few characters at most, perhaps even similar substrings, when decoded using this tabular system?

   

Relevant threads: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[JoJo_Jost]

So would these two labels differ by one or few characters at most, perhaps even similar substrings, when decoded using this tabular system?

Relevant threads: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Labels seem to be a bit different somehow; I haven't found a way to handle them yet, sorry.

Basically, I think the two words are very similar, but just how similar—that's probably the key question, and I can't really say anything about that, sorry.