Oy, I just read the part about "The Second Manuscript" two times to try to understand his argument, but it makes no sense at all.
It's full of convoluted generalizations that make it sound like he doesn't really know anything about medieval scripts and simply looked up a few things to try to make an argument.
Yes, it's a numeral, a normal numeral for the time. In fact, they had been using this form of 8 in Latin manuscripts in Europe since the 12th century.
It is also a normal "d" in some medieval scripts, and a normal "s" in some medieval scripts. There is absolutely no reason to stretch to some obscure African reference to explain it and it's absurd that he would call it "unfamiliar... to the Latin eye". Utterly uninformed and false.
It's full of convoluted generalizations that make it sound like he doesn't really know anything about medieval scripts and simply looked up a few things to try to make an argument.
(15-05-2019, 10:06 PM)Koen G wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Nooooo look at this. He says about "d"
"It is an unfamiliar symbol to the Latin eye, as it has North African origins in the nuun symbol. The Arabic influence on the Romance languages is often neglected due to the Eurocentric historic view of linguistics."
It's a ****ing eight, Gerard. We call them Arabic numerals.
Yes, it's a numeral, a normal numeral for the time. In fact, they had been using this form of 8 in Latin manuscripts in Europe since the 12th century.
It is also a normal "d" in some medieval scripts, and a normal "s" in some medieval scripts. There is absolutely no reason to stretch to some obscure African reference to explain it and it's absurd that he would call it "unfamiliar... to the Latin eye". Utterly uninformed and false.