ju
Why does something have to be frequent to be "legitimate"?
In addition to these uncommon 4o patterns, there are also some uncommon characters that are clearly written and easy to distinguish from other characters but infrequently written. Are we going to call them copying errors?
I don't think anyone would call x a copying error, even though it is infrequent. In fact, some glyphs only occur once. I don't think we should be too quick to dismiss variants of 4o as "copying errors" just because they are infrequent.
I wouldn't go so far as to argue that the 4o macron-shapes represent "a universal mark or part of the system" (or to deny that they are such), but I DO think they are deliberate (not mistakes) and deserve attention (provide clues).
(11-02-2019, 01:16 PM)nickpelling wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view....
If it was a universal mark or part of the system (as you seem to assume), we'd expect to see it throughout the text: but we don't.
Why does something have to be frequent to be "legitimate"?
In addition to these uncommon 4o patterns, there are also some uncommon characters that are clearly written and easy to distinguish from other characters but infrequently written. Are we going to call them copying errors?
I don't think anyone would call x a copying error, even though it is infrequent. In fact, some glyphs only occur once. I don't think we should be too quick to dismiss variants of 4o as "copying errors" just because they are infrequent.
I wouldn't go so far as to argue that the 4o macron-shapes represent "a universal mark or part of the system" (or to deny that they are such), but I DO think they are deliberate (not mistakes) and deserve attention (provide clues).