I really don't know what the third letter of "ho[ ]" is but it looks more v than anything else in the various image-processed versions.
The next word more than likely starts with "vi" but the rest is not clear.
It's NOT the job of research to turn it into something meaningful. It's the job of research to determine what it is and it may NOT be meaningful in a normal linguistic way. It may be processed text.
I also don't think it's productive to try to make it into words in a language different from the preceding words. It's better to try to discern the language rather than shoehorn the letters to turn them into something they are not.
One has to learn to be comfortable with unknowns and to live with them until research makes them clearer rather than to force something on them. Most people are in too much of a hurry to do good research.
Look at the embossed scan on davidsch's blog. It reveals more than the raw scan:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
The next word more than likely starts with "vi" but the rest is not clear.
Quote:"The hov might not be a big problem because the transliteration of Vav can be either a w or a v. Is "hov" a real word in any language?"
It's NOT the job of research to turn it into something meaningful. It's the job of research to determine what it is and it may NOT be meaningful in a normal linguistic way. It may be processed text.
I also don't think it's productive to try to make it into words in a language different from the preceding words. It's better to try to discern the language rather than shoehorn the letters to turn them into something they are not.
One has to learn to be comfortable with unknowns and to live with them until research makes them clearer rather than to force something on them. Most people are in too much of a hurry to do good research.
Look at the embossed scan on davidsch's blog. It reveals more than the raw scan:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.