@ Stolfi
I see it differently: the downward stroke below the “r” isn't a stroke that was actually written; it's offset and similar to the stroke next to it (red arrows). Plus, it's slightly separated. That means it's not part of the letter.
Otherwise, the writer would have had to pause briefly and then continue writing slightly offset.
It’s an “r” because the writer writes the “r” with a dot next to the stroke, and that dot is still visible here right next to the “i” (blue arrow). So it’s an “r,” just like the last letter of the word. Therefore, it’s not a “p.”
Putrifer is the most plausible explanation in this regard. (And a very old one at that—I don’t know who came up with it, otherwise I would cite them.)
I see it differently: the downward stroke below the “r” isn't a stroke that was actually written; it's offset and similar to the stroke next to it (red arrows). Plus, it's slightly separated. That means it's not part of the letter.
Otherwise, the writer would have had to pause briefly and then continue writing slightly offset.
It’s an “r” because the writer writes the “r” with a dot next to the stroke, and that dot is still visible here right next to the “i” (blue arrow). So it’s an “r,” just like the last letter of the word. Therefore, it’s not a “p.”
Putrifer is the most plausible explanation in this regard. (And a very old one at that—I don’t know who came up with it, otherwise I would cite them.)