> Does anyone here have enough of an understanding
> of those "gang names" to explain whether there are
> different meanings depending on whether the glyphs
> appear in isolation vs. associated with a
> cartouche, or why a cartouche appears without
> being followed by glyphs (such as that half
> cartouche) when that same cartouche appears nearby
> with an associated gang name?
> Significant credence has been put into the
> presence of those cartouches in G1 and also G3's
> ancillary structure as an indicator of ownership
> and original construction, so I assume there is
> more known about these formulas than simply the
> mere presence of "Friends of Khufu" or
> "Drunkards of Menkaure" graffiti that speak to the
> provenance of the original construction of the
> associated structures.
> Anyone else care to render an opinion?
Perhaps 'opinion' is not the best place to start. Still, that you've asked for direction of a sort, I would gladly like to submit the following for your review. I have great confidence it will lead to a better understanding of what Martin is trying to show:
Royal Titulary (at Wikipedia)
(Although I am not recommending Wiki as a definitive resource, I set it out here to direct you to the bibliography on the page. Further, it was a quick grab from a basic google search for 'Egyptian Royal Titulary'. More on the subject can be gleaned from other links in the search results.)
Of special attention in the above biblio, I would direct you to 'Egyptian Grammar', by Alan Gardiner (3rd Ed. at Griffith Inst, 2001) p.71 ff, under the heading 'Excursus A - The Titulary and Other Designations of the King'.
And so, we should remove ourselves from opinion on the matter, seeking to receive education first, then opinion to follow.
On your first question:
Does anyone here have enough of an understanding of those "gang names" to explain whether there are different meanings depending on whether the glyphs appear in isolation vs. associated with a cartouche
No, the meanings are not different based on where they appear. For example, if we see 'The Red Bandit Gang of Khufu', then elsewhere see 'The Red Bandit Gang', it is still the 'Red Bandit Gang'. It's like the 'Seattle Seahawks', the 'Seahawks', the 'Hawks'; regardless of the grammatical context, we know who we are talking about (apologies if no NFL fans in the house.)
... or why a cartouche appears without being followed by glyphs (such as that half cartouche) when that same cartouche appears nearby with an associated gang name?
... which I see basically as a flip scenario of the original question, so the answer is similar -- there is no difference. Could easily be seen as forms(styles) of habitual signage, anywhere from the quarry excursion to immediately before final placement.
To close you were wondering:
Significant credence has been put into the presence of those cartouches in G1 and also G3's ancillary structure as an indicator of ownership and original construction, so I assume there is more known about these formulas than simply the mere presence of "Friends of Khufu" or "Drunkards of Menkaure" graffiti that speak to the provenance of the original construction of the associated structures.
The first part about 'significant credence' indicating 'ownership' of the structure is credible for the simple fact of where these inscriptions are found, more significant in the case of Khufu's being locked internally. However, you follow thinking this 'credibility' may be borne out of the grammatical formula itself, but this is not the case. To be forthright, the names state what they state, I see no specific (nor general) further suggestive code within the names nor the individual glyphs**.
I kindly implore you to give a sincere study of the (albeit brief) material I've supplied earlier to help with your understanding of not just the subject, but a possible appreciation of why Martin might be showing a tiny bit of frustration. Neither he nor I nor others could do better than the expansive resources themselves.
** This is my current position, however I am obliged to let you know I have personal studies in AE glyphs which render additional extrications, remaining fully contextual to the original, obvious set. Being transparent on my studies does not, however, mean I see something 'more' within the glyphs in question here.