bunny, if you run your cursor across the part you quoted (in post #22) and then click the mouth bubble icon, it will turn it into a quote. The way you have it now, readers can't tell which part is the quote and which part is your reply.
...
There are of course many parts that could be referencing medieval shorthand like the 9, but the small superscript 2 = ur/tur seems unlikely otherwise it would occur more frequently than 1-3 times in a whole manuscript? I have no problem the manuscript being read in Latin but shorthand needs to occur frequently if to be bothered with at all, and if they are "known" contractions then computer analysis of all possible other letter substitution should have given something up by now, assuming of course it is medieval at all and Latin. The weirdos on f1 for example though are found across many cultures and languages as marginalia, not just Latin. If it is pure Latin and has common scribal contractions then I expect it to be translated as such and in full already, so why not?
Bunny
Bunny, I never said anything about reading the VMS in Latin. I pointed out shapes in the VMS that have shape-mates in Latin and informed readers about what it means in languages that use the Latin character set. Please do not confuse my comments about shape-mates with assumptions about language.
Also, when I am talking about Latin characters, I am not necessarily talking about Latin language. The Latin characters were used (and are still used) to write many languages.
Also shorthand is not the same as medieval scribal abbreviations. The scribal abbreviations were common and known by almost all scribes. Shorthand systems existed also, but they are quite different from the regular scribal abbreviations and many scribes did not know them.
(03-07-2020, 06:11 PM)bunny wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
...
There are of course many parts that could be referencing medieval shorthand like the 9, but the small superscript 2 = ur/tur seems unlikely otherwise it would occur more frequently than 1-3 times in a whole manuscript? I have no problem the manuscript being read in Latin but shorthand needs to occur frequently if to be bothered with at all, and if they are "known" contractions then computer analysis of all possible other letter substitution should have given something up by now, assuming of course it is medieval at all and Latin. The weirdos on f1 for example though are found across many cultures and languages as marginalia, not just Latin. If it is pure Latin and has common scribal contractions then I expect it to be translated as such and in full already, so why not?
Bunny
Bunny, I never said anything about reading the VMS in Latin. I pointed out shapes in the VMS that have shape-mates in Latin and informed readers about what it means in languages that use the Latin character set. Please do not confuse my comments about shape-mates with assumptions about language.
Also, when I am talking about Latin characters, I am not necessarily talking about Latin language. The Latin characters were used (and are still used) to write many languages.
Also shorthand is not the same as medieval scribal abbreviations. The scribal abbreviations were common and known by almost all scribes. Shorthand systems existed also, but they are quite different from the regular scribal abbreviations and many scribes did not know them.