[#29] Writing limitations

references.bib

@@ -52,6 +52,17 @@ @book{thompson1962
   year           = {1962}
 }
 
+@inbook{kelley1962,
+  author         = {Kelley, David H.},
+  chapter        = {Reviewed Work: A Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs by J. Eric S. Thompson},
+  pages          = {436-438},
+  title          = {American Journal of Archaeology},
+  year           = {1962},
+  volume         = {66},
+  number         = {4},
+  doi            = {https://doi.org/10.2307/502055},
+}
+
 @book{knorozov1967,
   author         = {Knorozov, Yuri},
   title          = {Selected chapters from the writing of the Maya Indians (1965)},

terminology/terminology.tex

@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ \section{Cataloging of signs}
 conjunction with the number.
 So, for example, all Thompson numbers are labeled with ``T'', e.g. \thompson{510}.
 
-In 2003, Martha J. Macri and Matthew G. Looper proposed a new system which assigns all grapheme
+In 2003, Martha J. Macri and Matthew G. Looper proposed a new system which assigns all graphemes
 a code consisting of three digits (\cite[21,25]{macrilooper2003}).
 The first two digits specifies the category of the sign 
 (e.g. A for animals, M for signs with hands etc.) whereas the third digit is an arbitrary number
@@ -98,26 +98,30 @@ \section{Cataloging of signs}
 
 
 \subsection{Problems and limitations}
-
-
-researchers followed the assumption that graphemes of a script are considered the same if 
+Having all these sign catalogs are huge help to systematically analyze the Maya writing system.
+Identifying graphemes are crucial to decipher the meaning of the signs.
+One way to do this, is by segmentation of the texts into distinct graphemes.
+Researchers hereby followed the assumption that graphemes of a script are considered the same if 
 they resemble each other in more features than either resembles any other.
 \textcquote[34]{knorozov1967}{Two [signs] are identical when they are both composed of the same 
 graphic elements\elide, whose drawing and disposition is sufficiently similar to allow them to 
 be identified.}
-One way to do this is the segmentation of texts into distinct graphemes.
-Further distribution analyzes confirms the connection and identification.
+However, if there is no control in terms of linguistics and content, 
+identifying graphemes can be challenging and even be problematic.
+
+Especially in writing systems with many allographs like the Maya hieroglyphs,
+allographs are sometimes not recognized and, instead, are interpreted as separate graphemes. 
+Another problem is that some signs are considered to be separate graphemes, 
+but, as later progress in decipherment has shown, were actually allographs.
+Eric Thompson (\cite[12\psq]{thompson1962catalog}) also recognized the method of segmentation as 
+a potential source of false conclusions.
+David H. Kelley (\cite{kelley1962}) showed in his review of Thompson's sign catalog that
+some T-numbers represent more than one grapheme (e.g. TODO) and some 
+T-numbers are allographs of another (e.g. TODO).
 
 
 
 
-However, if there is no control in terms linguistics and content, 
-identifying graphemes in an unknown writing system can be challenging.
-Eric Thompson (\cite[12\psq]{thompson1962catalog}) recognized the method as a source of 
-potential false conclusions.
-Especially in writing systems with many allographs like the Maya hieroglyphs,
-allographs are not recognized and interpreted as separate graphemes. 
-Another problem is that some graphemes
 
 
 PAS example for over-splitting (Tikal Temple IV, Lintel 2 A7)