20-10-2024, 09:13 PM
Is it possible that certain contexts "reminded" the scribe to do the m-replacement more than others? Or is it really all over the place?
Patrick: I agree with your points apart from the first one. There I strongly disagree
I don't see the point in having an extra glyph if it behaves like eva-m. We might be getting closer to understanding the system if we figure out what m may be equivalent to. Whatever role m may be assigned in a solution cannot be that of a full letter in the first place, so it is already not a stand-alone part of the alphabet. Or am I missing something?
Patrick: I agree with your points apart from the first one. There I strongly disagree
I don't see the point in having an extra glyph if it behaves like eva-m. We might be getting closer to understanding the system if we figure out what m may be equivalent to. Whatever role m may be assigned in a solution cannot be that of a full letter in the first place, so it is already not a stand-alone part of the alphabet. Or am I missing something?