From: John Hudson (tiro@tiro.com)
Date: Wed Nov 05 2003 - 13:21:51 EST
At 09:55 AM 11/5/2003, John Cowan wrote:
> > I think this is a typographical decision, so perhaps a glyph issue.
>
>Absolutely.
>
> > 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 www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC tiro@tiro.com
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