Re: VMs: Folio and Quire numbers

[Dennis <tsalagi@xxxxxxxx>]

Bruce Grant wrote:
> 
> I think this points out the weakness of many arguments based on details
> of nymphs or castles, hairdos, flowers, and so on: this manuscript
> resembles a lot of things but not very much. 
	
	Been there enough.  That was my idea in keeping the
Historical Precedents document: keep track of the few
really definite things we've found.  But I need to
severely edit and update it.  

> It's really _sui generis_,   

	No doubt!  

> and not the only surviving example of a class of such objects.

	Now this is something I've wondered about.  When I
said it was by "an unknown subculture", I was thinking
it might be just such an example.  Does anyone else
consider this possibility?  

> Sure, you can go out fisihing and catch a coelecanth, but I doubt that
> is what this is.

	Quite so.  They did catch one, after all, but then
they knew there had once been a lot of them.  

Dennis
______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list