TRANSLATIONS
Let us forget all about the kuhane stations for the moment, and instead try to focus only on the G text as it looks. I have discovered a possible explanation for why there is an imbalance in the number of glyphs on each side, in spite of there being 8 glyph lines on both:
My discovery originated in another observed imbalance, viz. how the two centrally located glyphs - those with ordinal numbers 236 (= 472 / 2) and 237 (= 236 + 1) - were misaligned with the end of line a8 and the beginning of line b1:
There must be some reason for having pushed them 6 glyph forward from their natural positions straddling the gap between the end of the text on side a and the beginning of the remaining text on side b, especially as side a has only 229 glyphs. That it was not an arbitrary decision by the creator of the text seems to be rather sure, because also Kb1-7 has a strange position. Even though 4 * 22 is twice as large as 2 * 22 - and we therefore would expect Kb1-7 (illustrating 'zenith') to be inside the larger group of glyphs at right in the table below - it is used as the last glyph in the smaller group:
Which in turn presumably is associated (both numerically and from the appearance of the glyph) with a similarly positioned glyph in A (6 glyphs later than 6 * 61 = 366):
Another sequence of 6 glyphs can be observed at the beginning of line b8:
When I once a long time ago tried to allocate short sequences of glyphs onto different pages, these 6 glyphs appeared to belong together in a group. The head turned backwards secured an end with Gb8-5 and in the other direction I could not detect any clear connection:
Then the situation at the end of the K text provided another sequence of 25 glyphs (in addition to those from Gb8-6 to the end of side b):
25 at the end of side b of G and 25 at the end of side b of K. 6 glyphs before those 25 at the end of side b of G and then those strange 6 at the beginning of side b. Playing with these pieces of the puzzle gave an answer: If 6 glyphs at the end of side b were regarded as belonging to the same sequence as the glyphs on side a, it could motivate (when counting) to push 6 glyphs from the end of side a to the beginning of side b:
But it would be strange if Gb8-6--30 remained at the end of side b. They should also be counted as at the beginning of side a. And because the middle glyphs (236 / 237) were pushed only 6 glyphs forward (and not 6 + 25 = 31 glyphs forward), they should be thought of as belonging to side a already before those 6 glyphs were pushed forward. Those 6 glyphs are not equally self-evidently belonging on side a as those 25. We have already earlier regarded it as more or less certain that the very last glyph, Gb8-30, must be where the counting should start. Now it appears plausible that instead it should be Gb7-31 which is the very first glyph of side a. From these intricate relationships, based on counting, on how the glyphs look, and on several different patterns in the texts of G, K, and A, a new structure evolved, in which the following appears to be the main idea:
On side a then follows 177 (= 3 * 59) more glyphs, and the sum becomes 90 + 177 = 267, a number which rings a bell, because it is 100 more than 167, appearing for instance at Kb4-14 - cfr above. In 177 we have used the 6 first glyphs on side b (and also, of course, 6 + 25 = 31 glyphs at the end of side b). If we add the 6 first glyphs on side b to those 6 + 25 (from Gb7-31 to the end of side b), we reach 37. I guess we ought to have reached 36. It will become 36 if we count one of those 471 glyphs twice, presumbly Gb7-31.
The other 177 glyphs (equal to 3 * 59) - located on 'side b' - create symmetry. The relevant glyphs are:
The imbalance between the sides have now increased from 229 / 242 to 205 / 267, which implies that the creator of the G text may have tried to keep a kind of balance between the number of glyphs on each side. |