08-03-2020, 01:19 PM
This all remains compatible with dumb (i.e. mistake-making) scribes copying glyphs from an intermediate medium (e.g. a wax tablet) without actually understanding what they were copying.
However, I don't believe that talking about an "algorithm" in the context of a 15th century linguistic work makes any sense - algorithms were then only understood as numerical steps. It would take several more centuries before algorithms broke out of their box and expanded into other fields (and we can probably thank our old friend George Boole for that).
The closest the 16th century gets is the tables in the Book of Soyga (which may possibly have been copied from a 15th century Venetian original), but even they are still basically numerical.
However, I don't believe that talking about an "algorithm" in the context of a 15th century linguistic work makes any sense - algorithms were then only understood as numerical steps. It would take several more centuries before algorithms broke out of their box and expanded into other fields (and we can probably thank our old friend George Boole for that).
The closest the 16th century gets is the tables in the Book of Soyga (which may possibly have been copied from a 15th century Venetian original), but even they are still basically numerical.