Koen G > 11-09-2016, 05:10 PM
Diane > 11-09-2016, 05:56 PM
-JKP- > 11-09-2016, 06:42 PM
(11-09-2016, 05:56 PM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
Given the remarks made in a letter to Kircher by Georg Baresch - do you think it possible that each glyph might represent a logogram - either by substituting a simpler form for the more complex one, or by recording (approximately) the sound of each? I expect the latter would be more likely, and that would make each glyph a syllable, I suppose.
Emma May Smith > 11-09-2016, 08:12 PM
(11-09-2016, 05:56 PM)Diane Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Emma,
Given the remarks made in a letter to Kircher by Georg Baresch - do you think it possible that each glyph might represent a logogram - either by substituting a simpler form for the more complex one, or by recording (approximately) the sound of each? I expect the latter would be more likely, and that would make each glyph a syllable, I suppose.
Koen G > 11-09-2016, 09:40 PM
-JKP- > 12-09-2016, 01:21 AM
ThomasCoon > 12-09-2016, 03:20 AM
(11-09-2016, 05:10 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I notice that in two of the cases you show here, the o would have collided with another o. That may have been enough of a reason to sometimes write it separately.
Quote:Or for all we know, 4o can be a standalone unite as well. Like 'on' or 'in' in English, for example.
-JKP- > 12-09-2016, 09:04 AM
(12-09-2016, 03:20 AM)ThomasCoon Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(11-09-2016, 05:10 PM)Koen Gh. Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I notice that in two of the cases you show here, the o would have collided with another o. That may have been enough of a reason to sometimes write it separately.
That could be the case - maybe he wanted to separate the o's. On the other hand there are examples of <qoos> and <qooko>, so who knows.
Quote:Or for all we know, 4o can be a standalone unite as well. Like 'on' or 'in' in English, for example.
Those are very correct words: "for all we know"
Wladimir D > 12-09-2016, 01:50 PM
-JKP- > 12-09-2016, 11:14 PM
(12-09-2016, 01:50 PM)Wladimir D Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
JKP / You forgot to mention the language of chemical formulas.
In addition there is an international "language" of radio telegraphist, in which a combination of symbols which denotes a concept. There is also "informal slang" for the transmission of not normative lexicon.