- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
- The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
-
RE: The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
Jorge_Stolfi > 29-05-2026, 08:38 PM
(29-05-2026, 03:42 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The temptation to label as “errors” cultural expressions that are different from our modern point of view is always hard to resist.
Perhaps I need to clarify: those corrections in brown over the red text are not mine. They are there on the manuscript itself. So it is not me calling them errors, it was the Proofreading scribe.
In Post-Post-Post-Medieval manukeyboardscripts, one often see "their" spelled as "there", "it's" spelled as "its", "you're" as "your"... Should we see those "variants" as the (written) English language changing, or as errors made by people who are not completely fluent in it?
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
Grove > 30-05-2026, 12:02 PM
(29-05-2026, 08:38 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(29-05-2026, 03:42 PM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The temptation to label as “errors” cultural expressions that are different from our modern point of view is always hard to resist.
Perhaps I need to clarify: those corrections in brown over the red text are not mine. They are there on the manuscript itself. So it is not me calling them errors, it was the Proofreading scribe.
In Post-Post-Post-Medieval manukeyboardscripts, one often see "their" spelled as "there", "it's" spelled as "its", "you're" as "your"... Should we see those "variants" as the (written) English language changing, or as errors made by people who are not completely fluent in it?
All the best, --stolfi
Actually there are a lot of fluent English speakers who make those errors consistently! However, the reason that they make the mistake is that they don’t care which homophone they use as long as the recipient gets their intended message. -
RE: The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
MarcoP > 31-05-2026, 07:20 AM
In my opinion, parallels with typed text are rather misleading and anachronistic. Handwritten text is an entirely different matter, and spelling itself was a very different, far more fluid phenomenon, at a time when the transmission of knowledge was entirely manual and could not rely on mechanical means such as printing or keyboards.
Scribes took shortcuts, such as omitting the dot above ‘i’. This, like the use of abbreviations and cursive scripts, was one of the ways scribes used to increase speed of writing, at the expense of readability. The result was that some readers occasionally found certain words difficult to decipher, as often happens to us modern readers as well.
As You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. points out, other differences in writing include regional pronunciation. One might therefore attempt a parallel with American "aluminum jewelry" vs British "aluminium jewellery"; however, it's important to remember how limited such parallels are. -
RE: The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
eggyk > 31-05-2026, 06:44 PM
(29-05-2026, 08:38 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In Post-Post-Post-Medieval manukeyboardscripts, one often see "their" spelled as "there", "it's" spelled as "its", "you're" as "your"... Should we see those "variants" as the (written) English language changing, or as errors made by people who are not completely fluent in it?
Are these mutually exclusive?
What is written language evolution, if not the culmination of many common spelling errors over time? So, depending on how common each mistake is, and how negatively people react or teach against it, any one of those may one day be considered (by future historians) to be an example of english evolution. -
RE: The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
nablator > 31-05-2026, 07:14 PM
(29-05-2026, 08:38 PM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Perhaps I need to clarify: those corrections in brown over the red text are not mine.
Gosh. I would never have guessed!
That someone (not a proofreader obviously because there was no error) did it in 1500 or 1550 is no surprise, as Neo-Latin became the standard in the Renaissance and until the end of the 19th century. You're not old enough to hold that view that medieval Latin is just bad Latin.
-
RE: The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
Jorge_Stolfi > 01-06-2026, 04:07 AM
(31-05-2026, 07:20 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In my opinion, parallels with typed text are rather misleading and anachronistic. Handwritten text is an entirely different matter, and spelling itself was a very different, far more fluid phenomenon, at a time when the transmission of knowledge was entirely manual and could not rely on mechanical means such as printing or keyboards. [...]
All you wrote is fine, but it is besides the point.
That book was not a draft or personal notebook; it was a professional copy made at a "manuscript factory", for sale or to order. Thus shortcuts, omission of the dots, and "regional variant' spellings wold not be acceptable. Again, it is not me saying so, but the Proofreading Scribe who made those corrections in brown ink.
As I recall, on the few pages I have examined, the Proofreader made very few corrections. The number of corrections he made on that rubric seems to be evidence that the Rubricator was not the same scribe who wrote the main text.
Some of those errors, like the omitted dots and the genitive in -e instead of -ae or -ę, could be ascribed to simple laziness. But I don't see how to explain other errors, like the spelling of the name of the book's author as lowercase "bone" instead of "Bona" -- except by assuming that he did not really understand Latin, so he did not realize that it was a proper name.
To my eyes, the Rubricator's hadwriting is not bad. So it is not like he was semi-illiterate or did not know how the proper way to shape a "ti".
And the Rubricator could not blame the errors on the source. That closing rubric note, like the rest of the book, was presumably copied from another professional copy of the book -- not from a cursive or hurried draft,like the VMS Scribe may have had.
Anyway, while we can debate whether that rubric is a pertinent example or not, my claim (again) is that a scribe who does not understand the language (or the encryption) that he is copying is much more prone to make errors (and more glaring errors) than a scribe who does.
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
MarcoP > 01-06-2026, 06:55 AM
(01-06-2026, 04:07 AM)Jorge_Stolfi Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.That book was not a draft or personal notebook; it was a professional copy made at a "manuscript factory", for sale or to order. Thus shortcuts, omission of the dots, and "regional variant' spellings would not be acceptable.
You clearly have no idea of what you are talking about.
From: “The palaeography of Gothic manuscript books - Cursiva”
Derolez Wrote:The letter i was normally treated as a minim and may be difficult to distinguish from the minims composing m and n, unless a diacritical stroke or dot has been placed above it. Dotted ‘i’s appear exceptionally in books from other countries, but they are a feature typical of Germany and Central Europe.
Seeing the deliberate spreading of falsehoods, even after I linked You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. clearly explaining the subject in simple words, is saddening. But I cannot do anything to stop this, so it’s better I just quit. -
RE: The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against
Jorge_Stolfi > 01-06-2026, 09:27 AM
(01-06-2026, 06:55 AM)MarcoP Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Seeing the deliberate spreading of falsehoods, even after I linked an academic source clearly explaining the subject in simple words, is saddening. But I cannot do anything to stop this, so it’s better I just quit.
Just because you think I am wrong about the dots on the "i"?
Too bad. You won't even try to explain the OTHER errors in that rubric? Or WHY the Proofreading scribe felt it necessary to correct those "totally optional features"?
Or consider the fact that different types of books could have vastly different quality standards, with respect to both handwriting and spelling? So what was normal in notebooks or You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.was evidently not acceptable on "industrially produced" books like that one? A fact that that "academic source" apparently fails to note...
Or note that the very source you quoted above says
Quote: Dotted ‘i’s [...] are a feature typical of Germany and Central Europe.
Which I suppose includes Switzerland.
All the best, --stolfi