4 ms·
I was confused by your reference to understanding the text, so I looked it up. I think a scribe who really understood the text would recognise the intentional m
by sjy 8y ago
I was confused by your reference to understanding the text, so I looked it up. I think a scribe who really understood the text would recognise the intentional misspelling. The transcription error reflects a lack of understanding.
But the error does fall into the deliberate rather than unwitting category described here: https://sites.ualberta.ca/~sreimer/ms-course/course/scbl-err.htm https://sites.ualberta.ca/~sreimer/ms-course/course/scbl-err...
- thaumasiotes 8y agoWhat intentional misspelling? "Pertistent" in the 1879 printing is a printer's error, and it's very clear if you look at the passage that it can't be intentional, because the same character uses the word 5 times in quick succession. The transcriber's error is unwitting; he specifically comments on the fact that he didn't want to make it.