> I think this is a typographical decision, so perhaps a glyph issue.
Absolutely.
> Personally, there is no way I'd let a rounded box with oblique hatches > anywhere near any scholarly work that I was typesetting. :)
What glyph would you use for "indecipherable character"? I'm curious.
It depends to what degree it is indecipherable, and generally this is something I would discuss with the author/editor. I was thinking earlier in terms of signs that are not merely indecipherable but actually obliterated. I think it is best to signify as far as possible the reason for the missing text; for example, if text is missing because of a hole in a papyrus I would pro[ ]ly indicate it thus, but if it is missing because an inscription has been defaced then pe//aps I would indicate it thus.
Obviously this is, as Phillipe suggested, somewhat different from the qere/ketiv issue.
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I sometimes think that good readers are as singular,
and as awesome, as great authors themselves.
- JL Borges
