19-01-2021, 04:36 PM
Rene.
your fundamental mistake is the assumption that you have the structure of a 'normal' text, where normal statistisc used on texts are applicable, whatever the language is, in the whole ms.. I think that is wrong. I am mostly workng on the Herbal texts at present, since I believe that the texts in the different sections in the ms. are to be treated differently and I think the best material you can compare the Herbal texts with are the text in things like Circa Instans or Mesue or the Vocabularius ex quo or even better the later texts of something like the Latin Hortus sanitatis, not something like the Bible or Shakespeare. And there you can have accumulations of similar endings ad infinitum, especially if someone has made notes in the sense of , In XY there is this, in YZ it is missing and so on: That is what I think the structure of the Herbal texts is. These does not mean that the same rules apply to the rest of the ms., I am not even sure or rather have doubts that all the glyphs mean the same everywhere.
Just two remarks on the side:
(1) I think the worst mistake made since the ms. was found was to treat it as 'abnormal', not as a common medieval Latin ms.m written in a 'normal' 15th c. script
(2) I think the 9 in the ending of words (and in some other places?) is a -um - abbr., more common would be something similar to a 3, but the scribe/author does some odd things
I can do some more expanding, it is a question of time.
your fundamental mistake is the assumption that you have the structure of a 'normal' text, where normal statistisc used on texts are applicable, whatever the language is, in the whole ms.. I think that is wrong. I am mostly workng on the Herbal texts at present, since I believe that the texts in the different sections in the ms. are to be treated differently and I think the best material you can compare the Herbal texts with are the text in things like Circa Instans or Mesue or the Vocabularius ex quo or even better the later texts of something like the Latin Hortus sanitatis, not something like the Bible or Shakespeare. And there you can have accumulations of similar endings ad infinitum, especially if someone has made notes in the sense of , In XY there is this, in YZ it is missing and so on: That is what I think the structure of the Herbal texts is. These does not mean that the same rules apply to the rest of the ms., I am not even sure or rather have doubts that all the glyphs mean the same everywhere.
Just two remarks on the side:
(1) I think the worst mistake made since the ms. was found was to treat it as 'abnormal', not as a common medieval Latin ms.m written in a 'normal' 15th c. script
(2) I think the 9 in the ending of words (and in some other places?) is a -um - abbr., more common would be something similar to a 3, but the scribe/author does some odd things
I can do some more expanding, it is a question of time.