(27-05-2026, 01:50 PM)rikforto wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(27-05-2026, 12:29 PM)Dunsel wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You keep moving into paleography, and that's not what I'm doing here. I'm not a paleographer and would be a fool to claim such.

I think trying to generate text without a theory that accounts for the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., either implicitly or explicitly, is going to stand out to people who have taken the time to understand the script as missing key details. I appreciate that most of us are laypersons, and the experts talk about the problems of "silo-ing", but the text does not appear to be wholly independent of the paleography. It is a fair criticism to say that your one page ledger doesn't address core features of the text. To be sure, I don't think you have to adopt the CLS wholesale---I have some quibbles with how he treats EVA <l>, for instance---and Cham was not the first to observe the phenomenon, nor was his statement definitive. Likewise, there might be other ways to approach the issues raised by the CLS without relying on it specifically. However, the basic paradigm, that the first half of words have symbols based on EVA <e> and the second on EVA <i>, seems to hold. Your ledger system fails to capture these features and, to my eye, that looks quite far off the text. I don't think it's a much of a defense from these criticisms to say your approach is incomplete as much as it is a recognition that they have a lot of merit.