Anton,
Interesting question, but not one I can answer. I guess I'm not sure about how the units are formed, and from what, so while I would expect the original maker(s) to have been consistent in essentials, I haven't a clue about how they would define the "essential-" or the "-consistent."
That's why I used the example of the Bobbio Missal. For the maker, the essential and consistent was no more than the alphabet and the meaning conveyed by the spoken text. Since he didn't care whether the spoken text sounded like his own dialect, or like Latin, or Latin spoken with the accent of his local dialect, his orthography wasn't aimed at producing a "book-" text, but rather a series of sounds which, being spoken, conveyed meaning.
It might sound as if I'm talking semantics, but I'm doing my best to describe a cast of mind.
Interesting question, but not one I can answer. I guess I'm not sure about how the units are formed, and from what, so while I would expect the original maker(s) to have been consistent in essentials, I haven't a clue about how they would define the "essential-" or the "-consistent."
That's why I used the example of the Bobbio Missal. For the maker, the essential and consistent was no more than the alphabet and the meaning conveyed by the spoken text. Since he didn't care whether the spoken text sounded like his own dialect, or like Latin, or Latin spoken with the accent of his local dialect, his orthography wasn't aimed at producing a "book-" text, but rather a series of sounds which, being spoken, conveyed meaning.
It might sound as if I'm talking semantics, but I'm doing my best to describe a cast of mind.