Oh, isn't this theory, that a writer copied it from a poor version and simply listed the different versions he could recognise one after the other something new? Then sorry... I hadn't read it before and I thought I had read a lot 
. Do u have links?
ysheedy okeedy oteedy qokeedy okeedy okeedy
Different versions:
1 / 2 ysheedy okeedy
the o in okkeedy has the beginning of a y (9) here he means, that he does not know whether the first letter is a y or an o. he also does not know whether the following glyph is an sh or a k; obviously it is not clear because the template is probably defective. eedy remains the same.
Since he cannot recognise the second glyph, he writes the same word again with a t oteedy. The third word.
The fourth word is the verse qokeedy. Obviously, the underlying word is in such poor condition that there could also be a qo at the beginning. Here, he uses a k.
And now the same word appears twice, which is also already in second place. So that wouldn't fit. Is it then a counter-argument? Not necessarily.
I try to explain these repetitions of identical words by saying that there were three different words in the original text, with slightly different glyphs, which have been normalised here so that they look the same. I will write another post on this, trying to illustrate it with examples, but it's more complicated than I thought
.
. Do u have links?ysheedy okeedy oteedy qokeedy okeedy okeedy
Different versions:
1 / 2 ysheedy okeedy
the o in okkeedy has the beginning of a y (9) here he means, that he does not know whether the first letter is a y or an o. he also does not know whether the following glyph is an sh or a k; obviously it is not clear because the template is probably defective. eedy remains the same.
Since he cannot recognise the second glyph, he writes the same word again with a t oteedy. The third word.
The fourth word is the verse qokeedy. Obviously, the underlying word is in such poor condition that there could also be a qo at the beginning. Here, he uses a k.
And now the same word appears twice, which is also already in second place. So that wouldn't fit. Is it then a counter-argument? Not necessarily.
I try to explain these repetitions of identical words by saying that there were three different words in the original text, with slightly different glyphs, which have been normalised here so that they look the same. I will write another post on this, trying to illustrate it with examples, but it's more complicated than I thought
.