Peter T. Daniels scripsit:

> > > (Pretty significant "repairs." You have imposed about a century of
> > > orthographic change on the passage.)
> >
> > Umm, not exactly. I looked at the Furness Collection online facsimile
> > of that page and copied it, changing long-s to s, i to j where modern
> > orthography would, and u to v likewise.
>
> Exactly. Those are the three, highly significant, changes you
> introduced. Long-s, which persisted to the beginning of the 19th
> century, remains difficult for contemporaries; and i/j u/v make
> 17th-century originals _very_ hard to interpret.

All I can say is, I've never seen any 18th-century documents that looked
anything like my modified First Folio (MFF) text. If you want to say
there's a century, or two centuries, of change *in the use of those
letters*, fine; but to say that the MFF is in 18th, still less in 19th,
century orthography is preposterous.

I could have explained to the First Folio printers exactly what I wanted
in about five minutes (once they got over my barbarous accent), and they
could have learned to do it easily if not entirely without errors. The
MFF is in a close variant of their own (still rather chaotic) orthography.

--
John Cowan www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com jcowan@...
SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should
be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake,
buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed
in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings "Ding dong, the
witch is dead." --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev