02-03-2020, 04:51 AM
The observation by Currier is at best badly formulated, and at worst plainly wrong.
- It is already self-contradictory: he only identifies one character, it does not appear in little groups, and it does appear elsewhere
- Eva-m happily appears at the ends of labels, where there is no need to provide 'filler' material
- Eva-m is not a 'dummy' character (which is implied by its being a filler). It can be replaced by 'r' and result in a valid word. Leaving it out usually does not create a valid word
- This is not *at all* the prime mechanism whereby a (more or less) straight right margin is created.
- There are lots and lots of other manuscripts that have a straight right margin without using filler characters
This observation cannot be used to derive properties of the MS text.
- It is already self-contradictory: he only identifies one character, it does not appear in little groups, and it does appear elsewhere
- Eva-m happily appears at the ends of labels, where there is no need to provide 'filler' material
- Eva-m is not a 'dummy' character (which is implied by its being a filler). It can be replaced by 'r' and result in a valid word. Leaving it out usually does not create a valid word
- This is not *at all* the prime mechanism whereby a (more or less) straight right margin is created.
- There are lots and lots of other manuscripts that have a straight right margin without using filler characters
This observation cannot be used to derive properties of the MS text.