Beatrice > 01-01-2019, 11:21 PM
-JKP- > 02-01-2019, 02:58 AM
(01-01-2019, 11:21 PM)Beatrice Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are right. I haven't seen as many mss as you. Just enough of them with a palaeographer to say that any graph can have different variants...
LisaFaginDavis > 22-03-2020, 01:53 PM
(02-01-2019, 02:58 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(01-01-2019, 11:21 PM)Beatrice Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You are right. I haven't seen as many mss as you. Just enough of them with a palaeographer to say that any graph can have different variants...
I agree that there is a great deal of flexibility in how the scribal conventions can be used, I see a few oddball variations every day, but they are still readable. I do not agree that any glyph can be varied in any way because if that were true, other scribes would not be able to read the variations. The variations generally fall into patterns that can be discerned by context.
I also agree that most of most of the VMS glyph-shapes can be found in Latin manuscripts.
But you challenged my statement that some of them might be inventions, and wrote, "...all of them appear in most mss..." and I've never seen any evidence that this is true. cTh, cKh, cFh, and p do not occur in most manuscripts, or even in any manuscripts that I have seen so far, so it's incorrect to say they appear in "most" manuscripts.
.
I have some ideas on why they are drawn the way they are, and I suspect they are inventions based on scribal ideas BUT that is not the same as saying they exist in most manuscripts. I think we have to be as accurate as possible in characterizing the VMS glyphs. You need to provide examples to support this kind of assertion.
Helmut Winkler > 22-03-2020, 04:23 PM
LisaFaginDavis > 22-03-2020, 04:36 PM