Subject: Re: 7Q5

From: [email-masked] (Nichael Lynn Cramer)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 23:12:09 -0500

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                                                      __
[email-masked]                         Be as passersby -- IC
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 00:31:56 -0500 (EST)

Readers of this thread might be interested in looking at an online 
interview with Jose O'Callaghan (in Spanish), in which he defends his 
position and talks a little bit about his rationale for coming to his 
conclusions.  The URL is http://users.aol.com/vemultimed/ocal7q5.htm.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------