Corrections in the VMS

[Anton]

No, if you play with image processing, you'll see that it is y, and not s + bracket.

I agree that it is t instead of k.

After consideration, I'm not that sure anymore that it's the result of a deliberate correction. There's evidence of some distortion through the whole this line. Note, for example, the k in cheokey.

[Wladimir D]

Figure 1 is first written point. Then corrected to "O". As a result, the symbol "o" found himself tall.
In Figure 2 the symbol "o" corrected to "d".
In a few pages fixes (+ mark? Fig. 6) made by other inks. Black with blue tint. See the original scans. When copying effect is reduced. 
"I" symbol in Figure 8 was unnecessary?

If this observation is true, the text 1. checked according to the original one arm throughout the text ( can throw assumption of wax tablets ). 2. If the text is coded, the code should be convenient (easy) to test. (lattice eliminates).

[Wladimir D]

Over the symbol "S" second layer write "T".

 Initially, are here was written the word "qo+vertical line+sor" !?

[Koen G]

Well spotted Wladimir. Though to me it looks more like a T gallow written over a bench (ch). Isn't the original glyph too small to be an S?

[Anton]

I think this is just a parchment impairment or an accidental pen slip. If you play with image processing, you'll see that it extends below the t.

[Wladimir D]

The massive correction of symbols in second pass.

[ThomasCoon]

How about this image? It looks like the scribe forgot an <s> and added it above the word.



If the text is meaningless (even constructed by a grid), why would he bother to add the letter afterwards?

[Wladimir D]

In this example, I estimate need for such a of grammatical writing 40%. The reason - leaping characters. But there is a obvious example with the same conclusions.

Here the first symbol painted over (destroyed), and "d" was added between.

[don of tallahassee]

I think the reason there are few corrections seen in the text is that there was a light pencil (or other easily erasable medium) version written in before the glyphs were inked.

An example of this is the fourth glyph (first word) on f16r. It looks like an EVA = e glyph. But there is a faint downstroke which would have changed it to an EVA = l glyph. The downstroke is faint green. (This would make the word more understandable to me, if not to any other readers.)

I tried to ask the experts about the possibility of an erasable precursor draft at the Washington DC Folger Library presentation, but was not called on to ask my question.

Thank you.

Don of Tallahassee

[-JKP-]

I think the reason there are few corrections seen in the text is that there was a light pencil (or other easily erasable medium) version written in before the glyphs were inked.

An example of this is the fourth glyph (first word) on f16r. It looks like an EVA = e glyph. But there is a faint downstroke which would have changed it to an EVA = l glyph. The downstroke is faint green. (This would make the word more understandable to me, if not to any other readers.)

I tried to ask the experts about the possibility of an erasable precursor draft at the Washington DC Folger Library presentation, but was not called on to ask my question.

Thank you.

Don of Tallahassee

They didn't use graphite in those days. They used silverpoint or lead, neither of which is easy to erase. And how do you erase it once you've over-inked it?

I think most likely they wrote out the script on scrap parchment or wax and then copied it to the vellum and destroyed or overwrote the draft copy.