diff --git a/QUESTIONS.md b/QUESTIONS.md index bc07160..fa8b962 100644 --- a/QUESTIONS.md +++ b/QUESTIONS.md @@ -82,6 +82,17 @@ cites as deliberately kept; leave it. wrong way everywhere passes both silently — `Bhăgavăt-Gēētā` was only checked because its rare breves tripped the character inventory. So the flagged cases are clean; the diacritics as a whole are not proven. +## Re-scan against the source, 2026-09-29 +Every text page re-read by two independent OCR engines (tesseract at 300 dpi, with and without its dictionary, +and the scan's own ABBYY layer), plus Apple Vision as a tie-breaker, compared word for word with `src/pages`; the +OCR is a detector only — each difference was settled on the page image at 300–600 dpi. **Five real mismatches, +all fixed:** three were silent normalisations of the author's slips (*precusor* p.79, *inaugaration* p.294, +handwritten *twelth* p.58 — now `\erratum`s, so the Errata section has 54 entries), and two were my punctuation +slips (p.56 `design:` typed `;`, p.230 `Gottschall.` typed `,`). Everything else that differed was OCR error, +a known erratum, or a handwritten correction (the unlogged ones are added above). Also confirmed: no line or word +of the scan is missing from the transcription; all 949 footnote-mark positions read off the image; every plate +caption present. **Not covered:** diacritics (no engine reads them), italics, and punctuation both engines drop. + ## Resolved - **p.295 *compliments* and p.348's dropped *to* join the Errata** (Sammay, 2026-09-14). This overturns the p.84 precedent for these two: a word-choice slip and a dropped word are corrected and listed like a @@ -129,6 +140,12 @@ tripped the character inventory. So the flagged cases are clean; the diacritics “r” giving *accommodate* and *repertoire*; p.359 an “i” giving *compatibility* and a struck letter giving *benefited*; p.362 a struck letter giving *benefited*; p.366 an “n” giving *fonts* and an “i” giving *facilities* (n.13); p.389 an “s” giving *newspaper* and an “r” giving *occurring*. + Added by the re-scan of 2026-09-29 (all checked at 600 dpi): p.19 “es” giving *Dissertationes*; p.110 a struck letter + giving *Qayyum*; p.153 a struck letter giving *Townsend* and “ar” giving *contemporaries*; p.164 *shortcoming* + written into a blank gap; p.170 and p.248 a struck letter giving *benefited*; p.171 the note “Principally in + England.” (set as note 1); p.172 a transposition giving *Persian*; p.188 an “n” giving *indigenous* and an “m” + giving *accommodate*; p.193 an “a” giving *available*; p.366 an “i” giving *facilities* in the text as well as in + n.13; p.425 “es” giving *Dissertationes*. - **p.42 (PDF 44), n.39** — the mark before “acquired” is ink blotting, not a caret. - **Library ownership stamps are not reproduced** (Sammay, 2026-09-14): they record that the *physical copy* belonged to a library, which is not true of this edition. That covers the University of London stamp below diff --git a/src/errata.tex b/src/errata.tex index 39acc05..9e7df84 100644 --- a/src/errata.tex +++ b/src/errata.tex @@ -15,6 +15,10 @@ % note 35: no space after the comma. \erratumline{49}{Advertisments}{Advertisements} % body text; the author's own slip. +\erratumline{58}{twelth}{twelfth} +% note 94: the handwritten marginal note, `the twelth word of the series'. +\erratumline{79}{precusor}{precursor} +% text, second paragraph on CW4: `distinguishes itself from its precusor'. \erratumline{113}{twelth}{twelfth} % note 51. \erratumline{115}{Charaters}{Characters} @@ -57,6 +61,8 @@ % body text; the same slip as on orig. p.132. \erratumline{291}{vowl}{vowel} % body text. +\erratumline{294}{inaugaration}{inauguration} +% text: `upon its official inaugaration on 26 September'. \erratumline{295}{Insufficent}{Insufficient} % note 97. \erratumline{308}{commmercial}{commercial} diff --git a/src/pages/p0058.tex b/src/pages/p0058.tex index b072a64..e6a8550 100644 --- a/src/pages/p0058.tex +++ b/src/pages/p0058.tex @@ -4,4 +4,4 @@ Alternative sorts are employed in CW1 for some of the vowel signs which require different designs depending on their position in a word. The sign \ig{plates/inline/p0058-k06.png} has three sorts: \ig{plates/inline/p0058-k07.png} for a final position, \ig{plates/inline/p0058-k08.png} and \ig{plates/inline/p0058-k09.png} for medial positions.\fn{86}{Halhed, \emph{Grammar}, p. 19.} Both styles of the medial form were commonly used in the manuscripts available to Wilkins, but there is no obvious reason to have both forms in the fount. At first sight, it could be thought that the central vertical stroke which rises above the headline (of the former version) at times fails to print properly, but close examination reveals two different designs. There seems to be no logic behind their application in the text of the \emph{Grammar;} the two kinds already appear in the first chapter in similar situations. The form \ig{plates/inline/p0058-k10.png} may have been designed to be used in conjunction with the sign \ig{plates/inline/p0058-k11.png} (\emph{candrabindu}), since correct positioning of the \emph{candrabindu} over the alternative sort \ig{plates/inline/p0058-k12.png} would not have been possible. But this does not explain why Wilkins did not confine himself to using the typeform \ig{plates/inline/p0058-k13.png} throughout the work, or to employing it only in combination with superscripts. Moreover, the position of the \emph{candrabindu} over \ig{plates/inline/p0058-k14.png} is by no means perfect,\fn{87}{See Halhed, ibid., p. 35.} and the final form \ig{plates/inline/p0058-k15.png} is sometimes used instead with very poor results.\fn{88}{Halhed, ibid., pp. 71, 170, etc; although Wilkins has been named as the printer of the \emph{Grammar,} it cannot be assumed that he was the compositor.} -The vowel sign \ig{plates/inline/p0058-k16.png} also appears to have two forms with very similar design; one possessing a higher and shorter curve than the other to facilitate kerning over +The vowel sign \ig{plates/inline/p0058-k16.png} also appears to have two forms with very similar design: one possessing a higher and shorter curve than the other to facilitate kerning over diff --git a/src/pages/p0060.tex b/src/pages/p0060.tex index a5c8e41..91878c1 100644 --- a/src/pages/p0060.tex +++ b/src/pages/p0060.tex @@ -3,6 +3,6 @@ \origpage{58}provide against the too frequent recurrence of the internal vowel.\fn{93}{Halhed, \emph{Grammar,} pp. 16-17.} \end{extract} -The term \emph{phalā} normally pertains to the signs which represent the characters \ig{plates/inline/p0060-n01.png} , \ig{plates/inline/p0060-n02.png} , \ig{plates/inline/p0060-n03.png} , and \ig{plates/inline/p0060-n04.png} as the final member of a conjunct; whereas Halhed used the term to signify `eleven subservient marks or signs.'\fn{94}{Halhed, ibid., p. 17, see pl. 17 showing `The twelve P,HOLAAS.' Regarding `the twelfth word of the series', see ibid., pp 17 and 24-26.} Whether Halhed misapplied the word `P'holaa' is not of concern here, rather the pertinence of his remark lies in the fact that Wilkins, for typographical purposes, expanded the notion of having reduced forms of certain characters which could be attached to any consonant for the creation of conjuncts. This technique obviates the necessity of designing a sort for every combination required. Thus it reduces considerably the size of the fount, although it necessitates the inclusion of \emph{phalās} as well as extra sorts comprising reduced forms of those consonants forming the first member of a conjunct. Both \emph{phalās} and reduced initial forms are cast on a smaller body than the main characters of the syllabary, so that two sorts can fit together to generate one character and still align with the rest of the fount. If well designed, the resulting conjunct has the appearance of being one integral character; the specific intention is to dupe the reader. +The term \emph{phalā} normally pertains to the signs which represent the characters \ig{plates/inline/p0060-n01.png} , \ig{plates/inline/p0060-n02.png} , \ig{plates/inline/p0060-n03.png} , and \ig{plates/inline/p0060-n04.png} as the final member of a conjunct; whereas Halhed used the term to signify `eleven subservient marks or signs.'\fn{94}{Halhed, ibid., p. 17, see pl. 17 showing `The twelve P,HOLAAS.' Regarding `the \erratum{twelfth}{twelth} word of the series', see ibid., pp 17 and 24-26.} Whether Halhed misapplied the word `P'holaa' is not of concern here, rather the pertinence of his remark lies in the fact that Wilkins, for typographical purposes, expanded the notion of having reduced forms of certain characters which could be attached to any consonant for the creation of conjuncts. This technique obviates the necessity of designing a sort for every combination required. Thus it reduces considerably the size of the fount, although it necessitates the inclusion of \emph{phalās} as well as extra sorts comprising reduced forms of those consonants forming the first member of a conjunct. Both \emph{phalās} and reduced initial forms are cast on a smaller body than the main characters of the syllabary, so that two sorts can fit together to generate one character and still align with the rest of the fount. If well designed, the resulting conjunct has the appearance of being one integral character; the specific intention is to dupe the reader. There are several means of ascertaining whether the conjuncts printed in the \emph{Grammar} comprise one or two sorts. Firstly, a break in the compound character can frequently be observed.\fn{95}{With the aid of a magnifying lens.} Not only is this division between the two elements visible, but often the same combination of sorts may conjoin less happily elsewhere in the \emph{Grammar}. Secondly, some conjuncts have been created by different means for no particular reason. An example of this is the conjunct \ig{plates/inline/p0060-n05.png} which appears as \ig{plates/inline/p0060-n06.png} on page 10 and as \ig{plates/inline/p0060-n07.png} on page 97. A break is at once discernible to the naked eye in the former version, and there is no reason for the latter version to be restricted to this form unless a subscript follows.\fn{96}{As in the case of \ig{plates/inline/p0060-n09.png} (p. 27), but \ig{plates/inline/p0060-n10.png} (p. 61).} It therefore confirms the suggestion that the conjunct \ig{plates/inline/p0060-n08.png} was not readily diff --git a/src/pages/p0081.tex b/src/pages/p0081.tex index 0265f88..4371a9a 100644 --- a/src/pages/p0081.tex +++ b/src/pages/p0081.tex @@ -3,4 +3,4 @@ In spite of sharing some punches with its precursor, CW4 is intrinsically different from any previous fount produced by Wilkins and his associates. The number of sorts has been extended in order to reduce the frequent occurrence of conjuncts made up from two types. This has resulted in the design of conjuncts as integral characters which do not suffer distortion from being created out of common components. The compound characters which benefit from this development are those that appear on page 4 of Haughton's \emph{Rudiments of Bengali Grammar},\fn{146}{See pls. 30 and 31.} and those whose second element is the lettershape \ig{plates/inline/p0081-w01.png} , usually termed \emph{raphalā}. In some cases, the second element may appear identical from one conjunct to another, but it is the skill of the designer that creates this optical illusion. In this manner, all characters possessing the stroke \ig{plates/inline/p0081-w02.png} now appear balanced and add to the homogeneity of the character set.\fn{147}{See pl. 32.} The conjuncts thus designed are no longer larger than the basic characters of the syllabary and therefore do not obtrude and break up words in which they occur. This feature has also enabled the designer to reduce the height of the typeface, since large discrepancies in the depth of the letterforms do not persist and, unlike CW3, clumsy combinations are obviated. -CW4 distinguishes itself from its precursor in other ways: the alignment of characters has greatly improved; the vertical mainstroke of some lettershapes has at times been shortened; the shape of the vowel sign \ig{plates/inline/p0081-w03.png} and letterform \ig{plates/inline/p0081-w04.png} have +CW4 distinguishes itself from its \erratum{precursor}{precusor} in other ways: the alignment of characters has greatly improved; the vertical mainstroke of some lettershapes has at times been shortened; the shape of the vowel sign \ig{plates/inline/p0081-w03.png} and letterform \ig{plates/inline/p0081-w04.png} have diff --git a/src/pages/p0232.tex b/src/pages/p0232.tex index 7f31ee0..e1dcdfe 100644 --- a/src/pages/p0232.tex +++ b/src/pages/p0232.tex @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ % PDF page 232 — printed page 230 — Chapter 6 (cont.) \origpage{230}function of the `exotic' founts developed for grand polyglot publications\fn{45}{The 1805 and 1806 versions of the \emph{Oratio Dominica} can hardly be considered suitable missionary or pedagogic material. The readership of the somewhat academic \emph{Recherches Asiatiques} would have been limited.} was to bear testimony to the artistic skill of the type designer, typographer, and printer,\fn{46}{Being one and the same in Bodoni's case. He suffered criticism for inaccuracies in his texts; Updike, \emph{Printing Types}, II, 174-5.} but above all, to display the omniscience and imperial power of the country in question - in this instance, France. -Whilst Napoleon Bonaparte may be accused of robbing Italian foundries in order to enrich the Cabinet des Poincons of the Imprimerie Imperiale, the introduction of new technology encouraged another kind of theft, namely plagiarism on a grand scale. The copying of successful type designs by punchcutters has always existed. Copies of founts often masqueraded as original designs by dint of slight divergencies from the progenitors. The issues of copyright and originality of design have never been satisfactorily resolved and constantly feature among the topics for discussion at typographic conventions.\fn{47}{e.g. ATypI conferences; see Edward Gottschall, `The State of the Art in Typeface Design Protection', \emph{Visible Language}, XIX, I (Winter, 1985), pp. 149-55.} One of the most explicit definitions of what constitutes an original design is to be found in Legros and Grant's \emph{Typographical Printing-Surfaces,} and merits quoting almost in its entirety: +Whilst Napoleon Bonaparte may be accused of robbing Italian foundries in order to enrich the Cabinet des Poincons of the Imprimerie Imperiale, the introduction of new technology encouraged another kind of theft, namely plagiarism on a grand scale. The copying of successful type designs by punchcutters has always existed. Copies of founts often masqueraded as original designs by dint of slight divergencies from the progenitors. The issues of copyright and originality of design have never been satisfactorily resolved and constantly feature among the topics for discussion at typographic conventions.\fn{47}{e.g. ATypI conferences; see Edward Gottschall. `The State of the Art in Typeface Design Protection', \emph{Visible Language}, XIX, I (Winter, 1985), pp. 149-55.} One of the most explicit definitions of what constitutes an original design is to be found in Legros and Grant's \emph{Typographical Printing-Surfaces,} and merits quoting almost in its entirety: \begin{extract} a new design must not comprise anything that is merely an enlarging, a diminishing, a broadening, a lengthening, or even a distorting of some already-known form\fn{48}{Here italic is mentioned.} \ldots. Nor can a new design be produced by the mere removal of some portion of a letter, and the substitution of another portion, from a type form already known, for the portion removed. diff --git a/src/pages/p0296.tex b/src/pages/p0296.tex index 150cad3..f207654 100644 --- a/src/pages/p0296.tex +++ b/src/pages/p0296.tex @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ % PDF page 296 — printed page 294 — Chapter 8 (cont.) -\origpage{294}The operation of the first Bengali Linotype upon its official inauguration on 26 September 1935 was given a mixed reception. The media, whilst recognizing the historical significance of the occasion and the consequent impact it was to have on subsequent vernacular printed matter, confined itself to describing the history of the project. Despite the fact that some leading newspapers, including \emph{Amrta Bazar Patrika} and \emph{The Statesman,} reproduced a paragraph of Bengali text set on the Linotype,\fn{90}{See pl. 126, fig. 1.} the typeface itself received no comment - although for the first time mention was made of its artist, Sushil Kumar Bhattacharya, who it was reported worked under the guidance of Jatindra Kumar Sen.\fn{91}{His name is not to be found in any of the Linotype records.} The inauguration was officiated by the vice-chancellor of Calcutta University, Mr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, yet the University, which exerted considerable influence on Bengali printing, soon declared the design unsuitable for setting its text books.\fn{92}{MC 918: Govil to May, 13 Jan 1936.} Majumdar conceded that improvements were required, particularly with regard to the design of thirteen characters, but he intended to employ these founts for his newspaper, despite opposition from others including Kedar Nath Chatterjee of Prabhasi Press, who advocated a more orthodox design. +\origpage{294}The operation of the first Bengali Linotype upon its official \erratum{inauguration}{inaugaration} on 26 September 1935 was given a mixed reception. The media, whilst recognizing the historical significance of the occasion and the consequent impact it was to have on subsequent vernacular printed matter, confined itself to describing the history of the project. Despite the fact that some leading newspapers, including \emph{Amrta Bazar Patrika} and \emph{The Statesman,} reproduced a paragraph of Bengali text set on the Linotype,\fn{90}{See pl. 126, fig. 1.} the typeface itself received no comment - although for the first time mention was made of its artist, Sushil Kumar Bhattacharya, who it was reported worked under the guidance of Jatindra Kumar Sen.\fn{91}{His name is not to be found in any of the Linotype records.} The inauguration was officiated by the vice-chancellor of Calcutta University, Mr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, yet the University, which exerted considerable influence on Bengali printing, soon declared the design unsuitable for setting its text books.\fn{92}{MC 918: Govil to May, 13 Jan 1936.} Majumdar conceded that improvements were required, particularly with regard to the design of thirteen characters, but he intended to employ these founts for his newspaper, despite opposition from others including Kedar Nath Chatterjee of Prabhasi Press, who advocated a more orthodox design. The importance of developing a Bengali typeface acceptable to Calcutta University was indeed recognized by the Mergenthaler Linotype Company, as well as by Majumdar whose inspiration for devising the scheme had been revived by the decision of the former vice-chancellor, Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee, that Bengali become the medium of instruction up to matriculation standard. Kedar Nath Chatterjee, who was subsequently described as a `most troublesome customer',\fn{93}{MC 918: King to Linotype \& Machinery Ltd, London, 26 Feb 1944.} worked with Majumdar on the new designs. Refusing to be hurried, and yet conscious that the Monotype Corporation was developing a Bengali system in competition,\fn{94}{MC 918: King to Griffith, 9 July 1936.} the pair modified all the characters in the light and the bold typestyles, particularly with respect to their spacing.