Koen G > 11-11-2019, 07:23 AM
-JKP- > 11-11-2019, 08:13 AM
(11-11-2019, 02:52 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well to me it looks like a 4. Without a higher resolution scan I suppose we can't resolve what has been written there. From my research four was often written 4, though that was not the only way it could be written. I never suggested the numeral "7", though I am not sure that you are right that it looked quite as different from the modern 7 as you suggest.
Quote:Whether you look at manuscripts every day or not does not resolve the question of what that shape is, this is largely a visual question.
Quote:It is worth noting that according to some the "4" occurs often in the manuscript, if this is a 4 then it might be worth comparing with those examples i.e. 4o 4P etc.
Mark Knowles > 11-11-2019, 09:41 AM
(11-11-2019, 07:23 AM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.4 was not written like this in the Middle Ages. Also, the horizontal bar is an optical illusion, it is not there.
The letter "i", on the other hand, was written like this.
It's fine to disagree, but then at least offer an alternative that's actually better, not one that requires even more squinting.
-JKP- > 11-11-2019, 10:03 AM
Quote:Mark Knowles: Even JKP acknowledges that 4 was sometimes written like this.
MarcoP > 11-11-2019, 11:03 AM
(11-11-2019, 09:41 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Given the resolution of the scan we can argue what we see and what we don't, without a higher resolution scan it looks like we won't be able to agree on what is there and what not, so ultimately I can only give an interpretation, not originally my own. Therefore your idea of what is required as regards to squinting is yours not mine.
Wladimir D > 11-11-2019, 12:34 PM
Mark Knowles > 11-11-2019, 03:29 PM
(11-11-2019, 11:03 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(11-11-2019, 09:41 AM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Given the resolution of the scan we can argue what we see and what we don't, without a higher resolution scan it looks like we won't be able to agree on what is there and what not, so ultimately I can only give an interpretation, not originally my own. Therefore your idea of what is required as regards to squinting is yours not mine.
While I agree that amount-of-squinting is an inherently subjective measure, higher resolution scans would not make any difference. The text is unreadable not because we are missing some tiny details that could be revealed by a microscope, but because the overall shape of the characters is unrecognizable: the text is so small and poorly executed that one cannot even tell which alphabet was used, if the text was meant to be read upside-down, how many distinct glyphs are present.
Koen G > 11-11-2019, 05:17 PM
Mark Knowles > 11-11-2019, 06:30 PM
(11-11-2019, 05:17 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Marco is right about the resolution, we can already see clearer and larger than with the naked eye. Higher resolutions will only lead to weirder theories about stencils.
That I is similar indeed, and in that case it would be acceptable to read the last bit as "IS" like you say. The first part remains strange, with what looks like a disconnected descender or some diacritic.