Re: Exciting New Discovery!

[Bruce Grant <bgrant@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yeah, I'd like to suggest a theory:

I recently noticed in Cappelli, in Tavola VI. that the 'ch' symbol is used
several times to represent the Latin word 'et'. (It occurs in the middle of the
page, in a sentence reading "Quam Finem Refutacionem et omnia et singula
suprascripta et infrascripta promixit ...")

Perhaps a gallows letter indicates the beginning of a clause (which would also
explain why so many pages start with one), and the 'ch' wrapped around the
gallows letter is an 'et' connecting it with the previous clause (in the same
sentence). If each sentence began on a new line, there would then be no
line-initial 'wrapped gallows' letters.

Bruce


John Grove wrote:

> It's going to be a great day!
>
> I believe I have just discovered something that hasn't been noted before.
> The crossed Gallows cth/ckh/cph/cfh are not supposed to be EVER written in
> the line initial position (only occurs 3 times in whole manuscript on f65v,
> f76v, and f82v).
>
> Secondly, and perhaps more importantly where several others would have
> occured - instead of one of those specific Gallows - a Split-G exists! Not
> all Split-G's can be explained by this usage, although many are still in
> word-initial positions - there are those label ones too.
>
> Now what does this mean? I don't know - any guesses? I want to fall back on
> my 'drifting gallows' line of thinking with a rule that if in line initial
> position - the Gallows can't be over a ch.
>
> John.