Game development is my profession, and I'm always pleased when a game broadens the creative horizons of gamers.
What games have you helped develop? Are you actually a programmer? Visual C++? gcc? Java? I imagine it’s still C++ or some variant, since there’s really no limit to its capabilities. Even Visual Basic is up to the task anymore. Although my impression is that most of the good programmers are starting to get gray hair these days. Most of the younger kids seem to be avoiding programming for some reason. There could be a real programmer shortage in a few years.
But on to the discussion . . .
You wrote:
When you say, "Under greater magnification," are you saying that,
• You've looked at the original manuscript "[u]nder greater magnification"?
• Brian Hauglid has looked at the original "[u]nder greater magnification" and concurs that the "parenthesis" must have been written after the "h" in "the" in the succeeding line?
—or—
• <Insert your alternative explanation>?
To my knowledge, no one examining the originals has done so, yet, with this specific question in mind. It is on the list for the next visit to the archives. Nevertheless, the high-res scans are 100+MB 1200dpi .tif files and permit significant digital magnification.
You would have to communicate directly with Brian to obtain his personal opinion on this matter. Though I make no pretense to expertise in handwriting analysis, in my judgment even 4x digital magnification yields persuasive evidence that the parenthesis was written over the “h” in the following line. I believe Brian concurs with this conclusion, but will permit him to speak for himself.
I will say that, after seeing several examples of the photos you possess, it is my opinion that one shortcoming they have is that the light/dark contrast is not true to the originals -- such that the blacks are often crushed. In other words, the distinct gradations between grays and blacks are often lost – everything looks black at that end of the color spectrum. This may account for your apparent inability to discern the bottom stroke of the parenthesis overwriting the ascender of the “h”.
Now, I could be mistaken about this: the photos you have posted online may not accurately reflect the actual prints/negatives you possess -- I could be observing an artifact of your digital editing process. But my consistent impression from what has been posted online is that the photos tend to crush the blacks.
I've already written a draft of my analysis of the variations in BoAbr mss. 1a (fldr. 2) and 1b (fldr. 3) that correspond to Abr. 1:12, but I'm hesitant to vet my arguments on an informal Web message board.
Well, although I am certainly curious, I suppose I can, to some degree, appreciate your reluctance if this explanation constitutes some of the “thunder” of a future publication.
In any case (as I have attempted to make clear above) I have initiated this thread with the express purpose of seeing what the critical responses are to those areas of the manuscripts I consider to be “problematic” within the context of a dictation scenario. As I also expressed above, I am no longer averse to accepting the conclusion that we are dealing with dictation transcripts. My nuanced views of the “translation” process can accommodate that reality. Still, I have been persuaded that some aspects of the manuscripts are consistent with visual copying. If those things can be explained within the parameters of a dictation scenario, I am willing to abandon the copying theory in favor of dictation. Hence these questions.
For what it's worth, my analysis differs—in some instances, fundamentally—with your proposal and that of Kevin Graham, Paul Osborne, and Chris Smith (at least as far as I understand what Chris believes is plausible).
I look forward to your analysis . . .
