About this board

    Not editable


    Pax (talkcontribs)

    Would it make sense to correct ÁDELA on line 16 to Á.DEL.A? @Jan

    There is also a couple of cases later in the manuscript where it says HELLÉNJA in the manuscript (p. 36 and 132), even though HEL.LÉNJA is the supposed proper form used everywhere else.

    In a wider sense, WR.ALDA is written WRALDA countless times throughout the manuscript. Should those cases be corrected to WR.ALDA too...? Or maybe it is best to transcribe all names exactly as written?

    My personal preference is to correct and standardise names to their proper forms and note it as a transcriber correction.

    Jan (talkcontribs)

    In cases where there is an obvious correct spelling or 'hyphenation' (with dots), we can use that as the standard, but there will be many cases of doubt. Where to draw the line? Also, it will be a huge task.

    In the case of Á.DEL.A, I don't actually understand the name yet. There are also the names DEL.Á (TONÔMATH HEL.LÉNJA) and A.DEL (son of Friso).

    ADELA.S would become Á.DEL.A.S. I would suggest to focus on the real corrections of misspelled letters. There are more than I had expected.

    As said, at some point we could publish a fully revised/corrected-by-transcriber copy of the book, but at the moment there are higher priorities, like a new Dutch (and first Danish?) translation. We could subtitle the Asha Logos 3 part series, for example, or move much more from blog to wiki. Just thinking aloud.

    If there are cases that you really feel should be corrected/standardised, please do. But to be fully consistent with that will be much work, probably also for me, discussing the cases of doubt, which there will be many.

    Another example: the various spellings of Phonician(s) in original




    To decide for a standard spelling, we'd have to first make an inventory like this, then choose. But the number of times a spelling is used will not always be the best criterium.

    In some cases the book itself explains that there are different spellings, for example KORNÉLJA IS WAN.FRÍAS. ÀND MOT KORN.HÉLJA SKRÉVEN WRDE. and MANNA.GARDA.WRDA IS FARIN THIT BOK. MANNA.GARDA.FORDA [5] SKRÉVEN. If we would 'correct' the wrong spelling, these lines would no longer make sense. In other words, look well before you leap. It may be better to first make a list on the side and not yet change all these cases in the wiki.

    Pax (talkcontribs)

    OK, that makes sense. I will let the names stay as-is.

    A bit off-topicː I think Á.DEL.A is related to O.Fri. ādêl “legacy, heritage (to be given to an inheritor following death).” The meaning would be similar to that of MIN.ERVA. Alternatively, Á may be related to Latin ā, ab “from,” e.g. ab urbe “from the city,” and DEL would be related to O.Fri. del “dell, valley.”

    PSː I am testing the formatting. Lesson learnedː always copy what you have written to the clipboard, because switching between the visual and source editor erases everything.

    Pax (talkcontribs)

    To add to the part about Adela, I have noticed somethingː on [039/26] it says É.SEZA.BOK “book of laws.” In O.Fri. there is the word āsegabōk “book of laws.” So the Á in Á.DEL.A may be related to É. Maybe they were sometimes interchangeable; so the possible meanings of her name could be “legacy,” “from the valley” and “water valley.”

    Pax (talkcontribs)

    Should [2] FOLKS MODER not be FOLK.S MODER? A genitive makes more sense, as compound words are usually joined together like in Dutch, German, Danish etc. @Jan

    There are similar (in my view) errors on other pages. For example: p. 17, l. 29: FRYAS FOLK, although the manuscript has a dot, so it would be FRYA.S FOLK.

    Should I correct these cases in general when I see them?

    Jan (talkcontribs)

    Yes, that's good. Because plurals are never with -S (I think). The S is short for HIS (which does not have to be male).

    There are no older topics