"Abnormal" words

[Jorge_Stolfi]

Do you have any evidence that it was mangled by a BEEP?

Sometimes there is direct evidence of this sort of claim, when the original traces are still visible. But sometimes it is just a matter of probabilities. Just like strange words.  

We have two possible explanations, (a) error or (b) rare distinct symbol.  If a glyph occurs several times in the manuscript, (b) is more likely.  But if it occurs only once (or twice but right next to each other, like here) then (a) is more likely.  Enough to become the most likely explanation? That depends on your prior probabilities...

I am not allowed to discuss this matter further here. I just call your attention to the tail of the q just above that first "strange r".  Or to the lower half of the plume of the Sh just to the right of your first strange word, that crosses the ligature and extends down between the e strokes, down to the baseline.  Or to the tail of the y on the first word of line 5.

Do you think that  those strokes looked like that already in 1430, when the Scribe finished that page?  If those strokes were originally more visible, but have faded over time to that present state, can there be other traces that have become completely invisible by now?  Could it be that the final o on that same strange word may have originally been an y?

All the best, --stolfi