17-09-2019, 05:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 17-09-2019, 05:17 PM by Torsten.
Edit Reason: typo
)
The hypothesis that the text contains numerous scribal errors assumes that the text in the VMS follows the same rules as a text using natural language. For a text using natural language a rarely used word close to a more commonly used word can indicate a mistake. Therefore such words look like errors to us. Based on this hypotheses it is sometimes even argued that we have to correct such errors before we can start to analyze the text.
This argumentation is problematic for several reasons. First, it is circular reasoning to assume that we can detect exceptions for rules we still want to discover. Secondly, by using this hypothesis we would start the analysis with the presumption that we can't trust our observations.
Last but not least the hypothesis don't fit with well known facts:
1) The VMS don't contain any corrections in form of deleted glyphs. If there are misspelled glyphs the scribe didn't care to scrape them out. This clearly contradicts the idea that rarely used words can be interpreted as errors. However one explanation for this observation is the idea that the text was copied from a draft and that the scribe didn't understand what he was writing. Such reasoning illustrates, how a problematic starting hypothesis leads to even more problematic conclusions.
2) Words with high mutual similarity are typical for the VMS. For each common word there is at least another one differing from it by only a single quill stroke. For example, in addition to the word <daiin> also the words <dain> and <daiiin> are present in the text. The existence of words with high mutual similarity to other words is quite normal for the VMS. Even if rarely used words look like exceptions to us they are in fact typical for the VMS.
3) The text perfectly fits into the available space. This is even the case for holes within the parchment or if a drawing of a plant separates a line into multiple parts. This indicates that the text layout responds to the layout of the page. Either, the text layout was made during writing or beside the holes also the text layout was copied. Therefore, this observation indicates that the text was adopted during writing and also that the scribe was the author.
An alternative idea would be that at the VMS is a facsimile of the original manuscript. But this would mean that beside the text layout also the "errors" were copied. This way the "numerous scribal errors"-hypothesis is unable to explain rare words and must therefore be dismissed.
This argumentation is problematic for several reasons. First, it is circular reasoning to assume that we can detect exceptions for rules we still want to discover. Secondly, by using this hypothesis we would start the analysis with the presumption that we can't trust our observations.
Last but not least the hypothesis don't fit with well known facts:
1) The VMS don't contain any corrections in form of deleted glyphs. If there are misspelled glyphs the scribe didn't care to scrape them out. This clearly contradicts the idea that rarely used words can be interpreted as errors. However one explanation for this observation is the idea that the text was copied from a draft and that the scribe didn't understand what he was writing. Such reasoning illustrates, how a problematic starting hypothesis leads to even more problematic conclusions.
2) Words with high mutual similarity are typical for the VMS. For each common word there is at least another one differing from it by only a single quill stroke. For example, in addition to the word <daiin> also the words <dain> and <daiiin> are present in the text. The existence of words with high mutual similarity to other words is quite normal for the VMS. Even if rarely used words look like exceptions to us they are in fact typical for the VMS.
3) The text perfectly fits into the available space. This is even the case for holes within the parchment or if a drawing of a plant separates a line into multiple parts. This indicates that the text layout responds to the layout of the page. Either, the text layout was made during writing or beside the holes also the text layout was copied. Therefore, this observation indicates that the text was adopted during writing and also that the scribe was the author.
An alternative idea would be that at the VMS is a facsimile of the original manuscript. But this would mean that beside the text layout also the "errors" were copied. This way the "numerous scribal errors"-hypothesis is unable to explain rare words and must therefore be dismissed.