Ben Denckla Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 (edited) @99asteroids wrote: Quote Verse 4. There's a qamets (a sloppy one) under the yod. But all the editions patach. Is this a case of the editions taking the liberty to correct a misspelling? Is that a sloppily-placed qamats-dot or do I detect a slightly reddish tinge to it, suggesting it might be a speck on vellum? Certainly when working from a black-and-white image, transcribing this as pataḥ means that the transcriber either ignored the image or the transcriber took the liberty of "charitably" correcting what the transcriber viewed as an obvious scribal error. Even the transcriber viewed it that way, shouldn't the transcriber have noted that liberty taken? Edited May 16 by Ben Denckla 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Denckla Posted May 16 Author Share Posted May 16 @99asteroids: As in other cases, I encourage you to propose a corresponding change to UXLC. Probably in this case what I'd encourage you to do is propose the addition of a transcription note rather than any actual change to the text. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
99asteroids Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 It is ever so slightly reddish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Denckla Posted May 17 Author Share Posted May 17 23 hours ago, Ben Denckla said: Even the transcriber viewed it that way, [...] Probably obvious, but there's an "if" missing, i.e. I meant to say "Even if the transcriber viewed it that way, [...]." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.c3123c857d1029f98e39c9394adc358d.png)
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now