The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[Jorge_Stolfi]

The missing loop of "b" is not an error, it was perfectly readable without it.

Please! 

It may have been perfectly readable in spite of all those errors -- but they were errors.  So much so that another scribe had to correct them.  The You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is precisely "Bonaventurae dialogus inter animam et rationem".   What the Rubricator wrote was  like "This is the end of shekespearz omelet".

• The "b" should have been uppercase since it is a proper name.
  
• The name is "Bona" not "Bone"
  
• "Bonaventure" is the English version of the name.  In Latin (from Italian) the name was Bonaventura . In that sentence the name  should have been in the genitive: -ae in Classical Latin, or -æ in Medieval/Church latin, or ę in scribal abbreviation.  Ending it with -e was a grammatical error.  
  
• The last word should have been "rationem" not "racionem".  This is not a valid spelling; and anyway that is not how the book's name is written.  Even if that is what he intended to write, it would still have been an error.
  
• The Proofreader added a dot over that "i" because it was needed, even after he corrected the "c" to "t".   It would have been needed even it it was a "ci".   Especially if it was a "ci", precisely to avoid confusion with "a".       (from that same book, page 63).
  
• Indeed there is a missing dot over he "ci" of "Explicit".  The Proofreader missed it, or let it pass because the "c" was well separated from the "i" so it would not be confused with "a".  Either way, that would make six errors in seven words...
  

And what is the thesis that you are trying to defend?  That the VMS must not have any errors?  Because not even a Scribe who could not read the language would make any errors?

All the best, --stolfi