08-02-2016, 05:23 PM
@Don
Typical for the VMS are strong rules about character combinations and weak rules for the word order. Both features are the result of the copying process. If the scribe was adding a new element to the text generation process one of two things could happen: A.) He could add the new element into his set of copying rules. In this case it was frequently used and we would see it as a rule. Or B.) he could forget about the new element. In this case the new element is rarely used and it would look like an exception to us.
An example for the first case is the 'x'-glyph. An example for the second case is the variant of the 'r'-glyph used in 'rotcho' and 'rodaiin' on page <f10r> (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as Timm 2014: p. 33). 'x' is accepted as new glyph whereas the strange 'r'-glyph is not. But the only difference between both glyphs is that 'x' occurs 35 times and the strange 'r'-glyph occurs only twice.
The same is true for the shift of the 'od' bigram in Currier A into 'ed' for Currier B. Since 'ed' is frequently used we accept it as bigram even it is rarely used in Currier A.
Another example is the switch between 'a' and 'y' as last glyph of a word (see Timm 2014: p. 5). Normally, 'a' would change into 'y' as last glyph for a word. But sometimes the 'a' was not changed into 'y' like in 'cheda' in <f111r.P.33> or the scribe has written 'ya' like in 'dyaiin' <f105r.P2.10>.
As last glyph 'a' occurs 63 times. Is the existence of 'cheda' therefore an error or is it a valid word?
The bigram 'ya' occurs 22 times. Is the existence of 'dyaiin' therefore an error or is it a valid word?
Whatever the scribe does, for us it always looks like a rule or like an error. But they are the same. There are only too many possibilities for changing a word. It is impossible to use all of them frequently.
@Diane: That something can happen within language doesn't mean that it is typical for language.
Typical for the VMS are strong rules about character combinations and weak rules for the word order. Both features are the result of the copying process. If the scribe was adding a new element to the text generation process one of two things could happen: A.) He could add the new element into his set of copying rules. In this case it was frequently used and we would see it as a rule. Or B.) he could forget about the new element. In this case the new element is rarely used and it would look like an exception to us.
An example for the first case is the 'x'-glyph. An example for the second case is the variant of the 'r'-glyph used in 'rotcho' and 'rodaiin' on page <f10r> (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. as Timm 2014: p. 33). 'x' is accepted as new glyph whereas the strange 'r'-glyph is not. But the only difference between both glyphs is that 'x' occurs 35 times and the strange 'r'-glyph occurs only twice.
The same is true for the shift of the 'od' bigram in Currier A into 'ed' for Currier B. Since 'ed' is frequently used we accept it as bigram even it is rarely used in Currier A.
Another example is the switch between 'a' and 'y' as last glyph of a word (see Timm 2014: p. 5). Normally, 'a' would change into 'y' as last glyph for a word. But sometimes the 'a' was not changed into 'y' like in 'cheda' in <f111r.P.33> or the scribe has written 'ya' like in 'dyaiin' <f105r.P2.10>.
As last glyph 'a' occurs 63 times. Is the existence of 'cheda' therefore an error or is it a valid word?
The bigram 'ya' occurs 22 times. Is the existence of 'dyaiin' therefore an error or is it a valid word?
Whatever the scribe does, for us it always looks like a rule or like an error. But they are the same. There are only too many possibilities for changing a word. It is impossible to use all of them frequently.
@Diane: That something can happen within language doesn't mean that it is typical for language.