Re: elided base character or obliterated character (was: Hebrew composition model, with cantillation marks)

From: John Hudson (
Date: Wed Nov 05 2003 - 13:21:51 EST

  • Next message: Guy Schockaert: "unsubscribe LISTS Fwd: Ecartis command results:"

    At 09:55 AM 11/5/2003, John Cowan wrote:

    > > I think this is a typographical decision, so perhaps a glyph issue.
    > > Personally, there is no way I'd let a rounded box with oblique hatches
    > > anywhere near any scholarly work that I was typesetting. :)
    >What glyph would you use for "indecipherable character"? I'm curious.

    It depends to what degree it is indecipherable, and generally this is
    something I would discuss with the author/editor. I was thinking earlier in
    terms of signs that are not merely indecipherable but actually obliterated.
    I think it is best to signify as far as possible the reason for the missing
    text; for example, if text is missing because of a hole in a papyrus I
    would pro[ ]ly indicate it thus, but if it is missing because an
    inscription has been defaced then pe//aps I would indicate it thus.

    Obviously this is, as Phillipe suggested, somewhat different from the
    qere/ketiv issue.

    John Hudson

    Tiro Typeworks
    Vancouver, BC

    I sometimes think that good readers are as singular,
    and as awesome, as great authors themselves.
                                           - JL Borges

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 05 2003 - 14:21:23 EST