- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
- ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
-
ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
Wladimir D > 30-09-2016, 07:49 AM
On the recommendation of Thomas open a new topic, where I beg you to publish the results of strangeness. Comments are welcome to the findings.
New examples
Figure 1 and 2 are very similar, but are two different glyphs.
Figure 3. It seems to me, that on "bench" written no apostrophe, and the symbol "s".
Figure 4. crossbar gallows was corrected with green paint, which painted leaves. (See original scan, copying effect is reduced)
Figure 5. I think the code 147 (extended EVA) is composed of "s" + "e" ( on the third floor).
The strange form of an apostrophe on "the bench ", very similar to the style of" r "on this page.
Figure 6. Inserted symbol "I". -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
ThomasCoon > 30-09-2016, 02:17 PM
Thank you Wladimir - these are really wonderful images! And now I can find your examples easily, and contribute some things of my own
Here is one thing I saw the other day - <s> written above <a>, as if the scribe made a mistake and forgot a letter. If the text was nonsense made from a grid, he would not have needed to correct anything (who would care if a single letter was missing?)
Second image: It looks like the scribe wrote <t> first and then changed it to <k>, meaning the two could be different:
-
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
Davidsch > 30-09-2016, 03:27 PM
This is research, what is the question? (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.!)
What would be interesting if you would actually go through each of the 228 pages that contain text
and in every page look if there are corrections.
If so, write down page, line number. Later you add the images.
Then, you can say the manuscript has been investigated on "mistakes" and we can see if there can be made conclusions.
---
в чем вопрос? (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.!)
Что интересно, если вы идете через каждую из 228 страниц, содержащих текст
и на каждой странице вы посмотрите, если есть исправления.
Если да, то запишите страницу, номер строки. Позже вы добавляете изображения.
Затем, вы можете сказать, что рукопись была исследована на "ошибки", и мы можем увидеть, если есть можно сделать выводы. -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
Anton > 30-09-2016, 04:28 PM
Actually this thread is not about alleged corrections (or, rather, not about them exclusively), but about unusual findings in the text on the whole. -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
don of tallahassee > 30-09-2016, 05:00 PM
Dear Davidsch,
RE: "What would be interesting if you would actually go through each of the 228 pages that contain text
and in every page look if there are corrections.
If so, write down page, line number. Later you add the images.
Then, you can say the manuscript has been investigated on "mistakes" and we can see if there can be made conclusions."
Why do you ask others to do the work you want done?
Thank you.
Don of Tallahassee -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
ThomasCoon > 30-09-2016, 06:29 PM
(30-09-2016, 03:27 PM)Davidsch Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.This is research, what is the question? (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.!)
What would be interesting if you would actually go through each of the 228 pages that contain text
and in every page look if there are corrections.
If so, write down page, line number. Later you add the images.
Then, you can say the manuscript has been investigated on "mistakes" and we can see if there can be made conclusions.
---
в чем вопрос? (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.!)
Что интересно, если вы идете через каждую из 228 страниц, содержащих текст
и на каждой странице вы посмотрите, если есть исправления.
Если да, то запишите страницу, номер строки. Позже вы добавляете изображения.
Затем, вы можете сказать, что рукопись была исследована на "ошибки", и мы можем увидеть, если есть можно сделать выводы.
I am in a position to do that, since I have been copying the text page-by-page in my free time. So far I have only seen those two examples but I will keep updating if I find more -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
Wladimir D > 02-10-2016, 07:24 PM
If in the first example of Thomas, symbol "s" can be interpreted as inserting the missing letters, and how morphological need, and if there is a "s" in the examples 3 and 7 on the bench speak about the insert (error) is impossible.
Especially since that are used as the upper modifiers not only apostrophes (of different types) and the gallows, but other characters :
"O" - Figures 8 and 9.
"Point" - Fig. 13.
"Horizontal line" - Fig. 10.
"c" - Fig. 11. (code 226 V101)
Figure 12 a) "c", b) "i", c) ???
Figure 16 ???
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is shown in Fig. 15? "m", 8, z, code 174 (extended EVA)? -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
Wladimir D > 02-10-2016, 08:27 PM
(02-10-2016, 07:33 PM)Anton Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Fig. 15 looks like i plus tail modifier t1 (as presented You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). Then, z would be short vertical line plus t1, and k would be long vertical line plus t1.
That is, it is not "z" . You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. . -
RE: ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.
Anton > 02-10-2016, 08:41 PM
I think it's not, although I admit it's difficult to tell. But screenshot #17 is more enigmatic.