09-06-2026, 04:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-06-2026, 04:11 PM by Jorge_Stolfi.)
[quote="Mauro" pid='85467' dateline='1781012206']
I have long suspected that ee is a single glyph in the same class as Ch and Sh (or maybe just an error for Ch); while an e alone is a modifier for the previous k, t, Ch, Sh, CKh, or CTh; and eee is an ee modified by e.
I also believe that the I in Ih,IKh, ITh is an error, and should be C; that CTHh and CKHh should be CThe and CKhe; that ir should be iin; that m is an abbreviation for iin; and that b, u, g are just badly shaped versions of other glyphs.
And finally I suspect that p and f are fancy forms of te and ke, respectively.
Would your analysis be compatible with some or all of these hunches?
All the best, --stolfi
I have long suspected that ee is a single glyph in the same class as Ch and Sh (or maybe just an error for Ch); while an e alone is a modifier for the previous k, t, Ch, Sh, CKh, or CTh; and eee is an ee modified by e.
I also believe that the I in Ih,IKh, ITh is an error, and should be C; that CTHh and CKHh should be CThe and CKhe; that ir should be iin; that m is an abbreviation for iin; and that b, u, g are just badly shaped versions of other glyphs.
And finally I suspect that p and f are fancy forms of te and ke, respectively.
Would your analysis be compatible with some or all of these hunches?
All the best, --stolfi