bi3mw > 27-07-2021, 05:04 PM
(27-07-2021, 04:51 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The folios of the manuscript are known to have been shuffled out of their original order.While it is true that some folios may not be sorted correctly, I would not go so far as to assume that the VMS was bound completely "jumbled".
(27-07-2021, 05:00 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This may be explained away by the tedious work being distributed across a number of scribes working in parallel.Even with parallel editing, I would assume that the writers edited individual blocks, otherwise it would hardly have been possible to work in an orderly manner. In addition, the tasks for the individual writers would then have been distributed more evenly.
Helmut Winkler > 27-07-2021, 05:16 PM
Helmut Winkler > 27-07-2021, 05:19 PM
(27-07-2021, 05:00 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(27-07-2021, 11:55 AM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What I find remarkable, at least, is that the five scribes are distributed throughout the manuscript and do not appear in successive "blocks." This is especially true for the "botanical section".
One would assume that one scribe takes over a section and then passes the MS to the next scribe for further editing (and so on).
This may be explained away by the tedious work being distributed across a number of scribes working in parallel. Imagine there are plain text sheets prepared, and the job is to just encipher the contents and plot it all down.
MarcoP > 27-07-2021, 07:43 PM
(27-07-2021, 05:16 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(27-07-2021, 04:51 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The folios of the manuscript are known to have been shuffled out of their original order.
That is simply not true, it is one of thr urban legends of Beineke 48 research. There is no reason to believe that the order of the original author was changed because there never was an order planned beforehand
Scarecrow > 27-07-2021, 09:04 PM
Quote:For instance, these 12 pages consist of three bifolios. If one looks at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., it is clear that the outer bifolio f26/31 was written in a different time (and/or by a different scribe and/or with a different writing system) than the other two bifolios.
Anton > 27-07-2021, 09:50 PM
(27-07-2021, 05:04 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Even with parallel editing, I would assume that the writers edited individual blocks, otherwise it would hardly have been possible to work in an orderly manner. In addition, the tasks for the individual writers would then have been distributed more evenly.
(27-07-2021, 05:19 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.You can explain away and imagine as long as you like but it it makes more sense to look the fats in the face
Emma May Smith > 27-07-2021, 10:06 PM
Quote:(a) Final ‘dy’ is very high in Language ‘B’; almost non-existent in Language ‘A.’
(b) The symbol groups ‘chol’ and ‘chor’ are very high in ‘A’ and often occur repeated; low in ‘B’.
© The symbol groups ‘chain’ and ‘chaiin’ rarely occur in ‘B’; medium frequency in ‘A.’
(d) Initial ‘chot’ high in ‘A’; rare in ‘B.’
(e) Initial ‘cTh’ very high in ‘A’; very low in ‘B.’
(f) ‘Unattached’ finals scattered throughout Language ‘B’ texts in considerable profusion; generally much less noticeable in Language ‘A.’
nickpelling > 27-07-2021, 10:44 PM
(27-07-2021, 04:51 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The folios of the manuscript are known to have been shuffled out of their original order. I don't see how the order of sections or scribes can be used as an argument unless the original order can be fully reconstructed.
Has anybody done that?
nickpelling > 27-07-2021, 11:15 PM
(27-07-2021, 05:16 PM)Helmut Winkler Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The folios of the manuscript are known to have been shuffled out of their original order.
That is simply not true, it is one of thr urban legends of Beineke 48 research. There is no reason to believe that the order of the original author was changed because there never was an order planned beforehand
nablator > 28-07-2021, 10:09 AM
(27-07-2021, 10:06 PM)Emma May Smith Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.For the sake of being complete, here's how Currier defined A and B in the Herbal section:
Quote:(f) ‘Unattached’ finals scattered throughout Language ‘B’ texts in considerable profusion; generally much less noticeable in Language ‘A.’
f) I'm not sure this can be easily assessed.