14-05-2026, 01:43 PM
Yes, that’s a very sharp observation. And it would explain why not all the rules work so well. But I’m much more inclined to believe that the writer tried to create the impression that it’s a Latin text by using the spacing. If he wants to create that impression, it’s almost certain that it isn’t Latin. 
Why else would there be such consistent spaces around the most recognizable Latin abbreviation patterns? “qo-” at the beginning of a word looks exactly like the “qu-/quod/quia” ligature. The 9-shaped glyph appears both at the beginning of a word (where it would suggest con-/com-) and at the end of a word (where it would suggest -us/-um). These are the two most recognizable Latin abbreviation positions on any 15th-century page.
Why else would there be spaces between the y at the end (us / um), the y at the beginning (con), and the qo at the beginning (quod, etc.)? Everyone will think: That’s Latin!
I find this very suspicious, especially since I can now say, based on many statistical analyses, that the probability that it is actually Latin is very low...
Why else would there be such consistent spaces around the most recognizable Latin abbreviation patterns? “qo-” at the beginning of a word looks exactly like the “qu-/quod/quia” ligature. The 9-shaped glyph appears both at the beginning of a word (where it would suggest con-/com-) and at the end of a word (where it would suggest -us/-um). These are the two most recognizable Latin abbreviation positions on any 15th-century page.
Why else would there be spaces between the y at the end (us / um), the y at the beginning (con), and the qo at the beginning (quod, etc.)? Everyone will think: That’s Latin!
I find this very suspicious, especially since I can now say, based on many statistical analyses, that the probability that it is actually Latin is very low...