27-01-2025, 12:18 AM
I'm not sure why this took me this long to notice, but I think there is a good case (if you think CLS has any merit) that EVA: L, is the line equivalent of EVA: Y.
This would only leave EVA: Q without a pairing, as it doesn't look to be made up from "c" or "\", but "|", maybe it belongs with other glyphs made up from this (gallows).
A thought I had, but no idea how much validity it has, is that EVA: q might be attached often to EVA: o (qo) because it is the double looped version, like k>t, f>p.. q> qo?
Anyway, I think the thought process of Y and L being curve/line equivalents and Q not being part of the curve/line groupings was fairly logical and maybe a step forward.
![[Image: lll.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/NMxQ0J91/lll.jpg)
This would only leave EVA: Q without a pairing, as it doesn't look to be made up from "c" or "\", but "|", maybe it belongs with other glyphs made up from this (gallows).
A thought I had, but no idea how much validity it has, is that EVA: q might be attached often to EVA: o (qo) because it is the double looped version, like k>t, f>p.. q> qo?
Anyway, I think the thought process of Y and L being curve/line equivalents and Q not being part of the curve/line groupings was fairly logical and maybe a step forward.