Tue Jan 28 23:15:54 1997

From owner-tc-list  Tue Jan 28 23:15:54 1997
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id XAA28525; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 23:13:43 -0500
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 23:12:09 -0500
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer)
Subject: Re: 7Q5
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1166

At 8:49 PM 1/28/97, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

>>Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> 2] Of particular importance is the N/I difference in the second line.

>I think this argument of Thiede's was repeated in his popular book
>on pages 41-43 and it is convincing enough (the size of the etas are
>not consistent either).

Two brief comments:

There are only two certain etas in the manuscript (setting aside
momentarily the conjectural readings).  Their shapes --and in particular
their widths-- appear to be very similar in the available photographs.

> ...  Another argument against the iota identification
>is that the iota adscript, required by the letters of the word TWI,
>ceased to be written around 100 BCE [Smyth, sect. 5].

I'm not sure anyone has argued strongly for the word "TWI" at this
location; only for the sequence of letters "TWI".

>Again, the best that can be said for Thiede/O'Callaghan is that the
>identification is just barely possible, but still extremely unlikely.

Agreed.

Nichael                                                      __
nichael@sover.net                         Be as passersby -- IC
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/

Back