27-08-2025, 05:37 PM
Re: "abiril" vs "aberil" Post #1071
I'm no expert, but if a selection of 15th C. texts is examined with the criterion of discovering how was the letter "e" constructed by various writers, some likely relevant information can be found.
I would construct the lower-case letter "e' starting with a short horizontal stroke from left to right that then loops up and back in a rough arch that connects to the starting point and then follows through in the full curve below. All without lifting the pen. That is not how the letter is constructed in many medieval texts. The investigation shows the letter "e" constructed of two separate parts that are meant to be connected, but when the examples show more informal handwriting, that connection doesn't always happen. Then there can be a clear separation of the two parts.
I believe it is generally agreed that the VMs is an example of such a separation and that it is "aberil" with a two-part "e" that didn't get connected.
I'm no expert, but if a selection of 15th C. texts is examined with the criterion of discovering how was the letter "e" constructed by various writers, some likely relevant information can be found.
I would construct the lower-case letter "e' starting with a short horizontal stroke from left to right that then loops up and back in a rough arch that connects to the starting point and then follows through in the full curve below. All without lifting the pen. That is not how the letter is constructed in many medieval texts. The investigation shows the letter "e" constructed of two separate parts that are meant to be connected, but when the examples show more informal handwriting, that connection doesn't always happen. Then there can be a clear separation of the two parts.
I believe it is generally agreed that the VMs is an example of such a separation and that it is "aberil" with a two-part "e" that didn't get connected.