Haran

Spin...hello? When does a serif on a yod go to the right as you said? The quote you gave from Lemaire contradicts you, but if you knew paleography at all, you'd know this stuff. "This shape is cursive" refers to the shape in the inscription; the other stuff about the "small crook, hook, or loop at the top" refers to formal yods and if I were a bettin' man, I'd say that the yods in those ossuaries have serifs that are to the left (just as in the Uzziah inscription on my website). At most, the initial yod is mal-formed not formal.

You don't even read what I write (or what Lemaire writes for that matter). He said these letters "can be considered formal" not that they "are" formal as you have misquoted him. There is an enormous difference, spin. Sounds like spin.

Of course you pay no attention to the things in his report that completely contradict you. You also put Dr. Cross down. Do you plan on ignoring all the big named scholars who define the field in order to support your own preconceived views supported only by misinterpretations of websites and scholars outside the appropriate field??

If anyone has been "rabid" about the PE, it is you, insisting that it has some sort of horn that is not there. Lemaire's not "my guy". He's one of the scholars whom I find reliable. Of course, it can be inferred from his statement about the PE, AYIN, and SAMEKH that normally the way these letters look in this insription they would be considered cursive but they "can be considered formal".

Already provided the meat ealier in the thread and am sick of having it dismissed out of hand without you referencing appropriate materials. Thus the simple dismissals here at the end, as I am growing very weary of repeating myself.

The reasoning has already been given, you just can't deal with it effectively without knowledge of basic texts on paleography. Might do you some good to crack open basic books on paleography before trying to address something like this and tell someone who has looked at the books what should be believed.

spin

Haran, as you are so into what you expect, I don't think palaeography is for you. You want Plato's heaven where everything turns out the way it should be.

If you want a cursive YOD, you'd better find one, but not from our first scribe, because he has signalled that you ain't getting one. As a cursive YOD doesn't have "a simple, short, approximately vertical stroke", our first YOD is not cursive. Lemaire's declaration is plain here. The letter is not a simple stroke. The head has been elaborated on.

You have an English language problem with your interpretation of Lemaire's use of "can be considered (formal)", for this "can" is not hypothetical in any sense in the clause. (Havana cigars can be considered the best in the world. Thai can be considered essential outside Bangkok (although some people do without it). A good knowledge of linguistics can be considered necessary for philology (though some attempting to do philology...). Each of these sentences gives the speaker's cautious opinion of what is.)

If the PE "can be considered formal", then the writer is saying that it is in his opinion, but it has been known to be used sometimes in cursive texts as well.

(If you truly continue to disagree with this interpretation of Lemaire's statement, can you make a similarly constructed sentence using "can be considered (value judgment)" to show your view?)

You're right. I only cited him because of what he said on two letters to indicate that you had no grounds for your objections.

If you'll note other threads I have done so before. It is nothing new. He has after all made some very rash judgments in the construction of his palaeographic sequences.

Lemaire doesn't define the field. He's just been the front runner in using his epigraphic knowledge to justify his beliefs, as his track record with Golan's art works has shown. He's just your guy. And Cross,... well, he still sticks to his outrageous YXD interpretation of Qumran osctracon #1. Big name scholars are no indication of good scholars.

Nice misrepresentation. What I maintained was that the scribe did his best to indicate a horn with the hard angle that he provided. Whereas you tried to crap on about his attempt to round the letter. Please.

Oh, there, there.

All I asked was for you to provide exact locations for your dismissals of 1) the uniform method of carving in the first part, 2) the prepared surface over the first half (and I don't think convenient partial weathering is even a serious attempt), 3) even depth of letters (hey, you did complain about one letter out of eleven), and 4) evidence of intent in the formation of letters. I haven't located any substance you've written on these things. As to the font style, you are down to complaining about the YODs and the WAWs

All you have done recently is tell everyone that you have some of the basic books. I guess that's better than nothing. I did say that you might get better value out of them than you have by selling them.


spin

Haran

Tell you what, I'll offer you a deal on them then, because you obviously need them so that you can accurately address the paleographical issues.

If there was ever any fruitful discussion on your part, it has ended, and so will I. (Do you have to have the last word? We'll see... )

spin