Weiler also hasn't noticed that there is a subtle, but discernible, different between most "et" symbols and the s symbol. A few scribes write it almost like s, but the majority of scribes make it a little more angular (or add a crossbar) precisely so it is not confused with s.
Unfortunately, Weiler's entire reasoning for Part 2 is based on two fundamental misunderstandings of Latin abbreviations.
He doesn't know enough about them (hasn't trained his eye to see them in manuscripts) to tell them apart, and so his confused explanation mushes them all together.
It's entirely possible that one of the VMS characters that sometimes stands alone (there are several of them) might mean "et" (et or and), but not for any of the reasons that Weiler has suggested.
Unfortunately, Weiler's entire reasoning for Part 2 is based on two fundamental misunderstandings of Latin abbreviations.
He doesn't know enough about them (hasn't trained his eye to see them in manuscripts) to tell them apart, and so his confused explanation mushes them all together.
It's entirely possible that one of the VMS characters that sometimes stands alone (there are several of them) might mean "et" (et or and), but not for any of the reasons that Weiler has suggested.