An important feature of the astrological notation I have proposed is that the [o] glyph is divided in half to become the formation [ee]. More generally, [e] is a bifurcated [o].
This suggests, most obviously, that the [o] glyph (omicron) is SOLAR in nature and the [e] glyph is LUNAR. The very shape of the [e] glyph resembles a crescent moon.
But this proposal must encounter the objection: why is the [o] glyph only divided one way? Why always with a rightward facing [e] glyph? If the [o] is divided in half - where is the other half?
The objection is: there is no evidence the [e] glyph is a bifurcation of the [o] glyph. There is no matching opposite half from the bifurcation.
But there is evidence on f49v.
This is the page in the Botanical Section that includes a glyph key on the lerfthand column of the page.
Among the glyphs of this key we find not only the rightrward facing [e] glyph but also its opposite - a leftward facing crescent.
We find two instances of this.
In most transcriptions these leftward facing [e] glyphs are marked as unknown or [?], but they are grouped with the rightward facing glyphs as mirrored pairs.
Here we find the necessary evidence that [e] is a bifurcation of [o] - [e] is one of two halves.
It does not explain why the leftwards facing glyph does not appear in the running text and only appears in the glyph key on f49v, but it does show the bifurcation.
If the signification of the [e] glyph is taken as LUNAR, then presumably the back-to-front [e] represents the waning moon. In that case, the notation in the running text only concerns the waxing moon represented by the [e] glyph?
Nor have we explained why [e] appears so often (and paradigmatically) as [ee] and sometimes as [eee] or even [eeee].
We have, however, answered a basic objection. If we argue that [e] is a bifurcated [o], where is the other half? It is not included in the glyph set in the running text, but we do find it in the glyph key on f49v. It is not missing: it is just not deployed.
No comments:
Post a Comment