[split] Jorge's Retracer Thread: darker ink, retracing of text and drawings

[oshfdk]

It is perfectly possible to ignore any details in the manuscript if needed without inventing a whole theory for this. Any detail could be explained by the whim of the author or a mistake of the artist, if there is a clear theory that bundles the rest together in a coherent way.

But you showed that you will not do that in this case.  "If it looks like a nabla, the Author must have meant a nabla"...

I don't think this is what I said, there was an important clarification there: "Any detail could be explained by the whim of the author or a mistake of the artist, if there is a clear theory that bundles the rest together in a coherent way." If I see a nabla in a Greek 101 textbook, I would assume this was a typographer's mistake. If I see a nabla in a book on postgrad math I'd say this quite likely just a nabla.

If, for example, there is a method to produce a linguistically and historically plausible reproducible translation, but it requires that all reverse plumes be a mistake, or even all plumes be purely decorational, I will be happy to admit they are a whim or retracements or decoys and are not really essential to reading the manuscript.

But to assume that an unusual glyph was a retracement and then use this as supporting evidence for MRT that uses the presence of many unusual glyphs as one of the reasons for its existence looks like circular reasoning to me.