Gee. In context, perhaps but, out of context, it's a tougher sell.

More “a” to me. Or even “S”.

starting to extrapolate this out. Havent decided what height to put the bowls of the bdpq. Both options appear in this proof. And guess where I got the e from?

chose the upper limit for the bowls. stretched the g vertically a bit, thickened the stem of the i a bit. should the k reflect the e and now the changes to the f?

proof 4

Shouldn't this be in the critique section?

Thinking though the glyphs have so far very much grown organically from the original g, they do not quite mix with it, as a significant (probably) important part of the g has been cut off. and so, this..

I put up a rectangle across the glyphs of a matching height to what the g already had. I had it suspended across the whole set at first, but that was too extreme, so I opted to keep it only over half of a glyph. Or maybe not at at, such as in 'a' and 'o.' Or a third as in 'm'.

what do you think about the 'n'? I think i may remove the cross cut there as it makes the glyph look, rather like a small cap 'B' actually. Or perhaps an 'R'. Actually i think i will refer to this glyph as is when I get to the 'R.'