[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: Folio and Quire numbers
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_,
> 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.
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: