Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Sinaiticus' Scribes and the Dimple Marks

Expand Messages
  • George Young
    Dear George: It seems to me there are several possibilities, including some association to our hyphen. However, my initial take on the dimple marks is as
    Message 1 of 17 , May 14, 2006
      Dear George:

      It seems to me there are several possibilities,
      including some association to our hyphen. However, my
      initial take on the dimple marks is as follows:

      1. It probably doesn't function in the same way as
      the asterisk.

      2. Similarly, it probably doesn't function in the
      same way as the metobelus.

      3. It does seem to signal something with the line or
      lines among which it is placed.

      4. It seems very probable that the scribe is
      manipulating the text, both in which the dimple mark
      is written and the surrounding lines. I.e., he is
      lining up the characters in such a way as to "inflect"
      meaning. Perhaps phonetic (if the text is being read
      out loud), and/or graphic (if the text is being read),
      or some combination between the two.

      5. If the previous point carries any probability,
      then the dimple mark might be understood as either (a)
      a cautionary sign warning the reader to read
      correctly, or (b) a marker to prod the read to seek
      more meaning from the line(s).

      I have looked at several of the other instances in the
      Gospel of Mark, and there does seem to be *both*
      phonetic and graphic implications to the signs. Still
      more, in Mark 14:63 you have a ptcp. (nom. case)
      working with an acc. noun. You can view the image at:


      http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/

      Why the discord in grammar? Surely the scribe would
      have seen this, which does seem tied to the dimple
      mark. The scripture at this juncture seems to invite
      further reading. Yet, in this example, to find
      further meaning one must read "the son" in contracted
      form. Moreover, the context of the dimple marks is,
      of course, the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of
      Jesus. My hunch is that the context has a bearing
      upon the appearance of the dimple marks too. Any
      speculation you might have regarding the dimple marks
      I would greatly welcome.

      Sincerely,

      Webber Young.



      --- "gfsomsel@..." <gfsomsel@...> wrote:

      > I was looking at your three examples and had the
      > thought that these dimple marks seem to serve a
      > similar purpose to our hyphen. In the 2nd and 3rd
      > examples this seems quite logical
      > 2. XITW-
      > NA
      > 3. KATE-
      > KRINAN
      > This doesn't seem to work in quite the same way for
      > example 1. There could probably be no confusion
      > regarding the association here
      > 1. KAI OYESQE TON-
      > hUION TOU ANQRWPOU
      > Nevertheless, the TON would be construed with hUION.
      >
      >
      > george
      > gfsomsel
      > _________
      >
      > -- George Young <webber_young@...> wrote:
      >
      > One other thing. To answer your question about the
      > dimple marks in the Gospel of Mark, I have looked at
      > them carefully, and my tentative conclusion is that
      > the dimple marks are placed beside a line of text
      > that
      > has more than one reading. I have provided three
      > examples of this phenomenon at:
      >
      > http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/
      >
      > Thank you for your comments.
      >
      > Sincerely,
      >
      > Webber Young.
      >
      >



      **************************************



      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • James Snapp, Jr.
      Dear George Y., The arrowhead-mark is usually called diple, not dimple. The can serve a couple of purposes: (a) to fill space. This is how the
      Message 2 of 17 , May 16, 2006
        Dear George Y.,

        The arrowhead-mark is usually called "diple," not "dimple."

        The ">" can serve a couple of purposes:

        (a) to fill space. This is how the diorthotes of Aleph used it.

        (b) to indicate the presence of quotations from the OT. (In this
        capacity it may be accompanied with a "<" mark, so as to enclose both
        sides of a column.)

        If you consider how the > is consistently used by the diorthotes of
        Aleph -- i.e., if you look for one explanation which explains its
        presence wherever it shows up in Aleph -- I think it should be clear
        that ">" is -- as Lake said -- merely a space-filler. And that's
        that.

        This does raise an interesting question, though: why would a
        diorthotes, or any scribe, feel the need to fill space? Here we may
        be in the realm of speculation. My own guess is that this diorthotes
        had seen, somewhere, sometime, a MS in which the scribe had left
        blank spaces at the ends of lines, in which a "corrector" had added
        embellishments. And so he added the >'s to prevent that sort of
        thing.

        Yours in Christ,

        James Snapp, Jr.
        Curtisville Christian Church
        Elwood, Indiana (USA)
        www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
      • George F. Somsel
        Webber, It might have been wiser if I had consulted Tischendorf previously rather than speculating regarding the use of the dipple mark. Here is what little
        Message 3 of 17 , May 18, 2006
          Webber,

          It might have been wiser if I had consulted Tischendorf previously
          rather than speculating regarding the use of the "dipple" mark. Here
          is what little he has to say on the subject. I imagine it should be
          verified though I should think he knew whereof he spoke.

          " signum in margine indicat ea quae ex Vetere Testamento citantur"

          It would be advisable therefore to see if in each case an OT
          quotation is marked by this.

          george
          gfsomsel
          _________

          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, George Young
          <webber_young@...> wrote:
          >
          > Dear George:
          >
          > It seems to me there are several possibilities,
          > including some association to our hyphen. However, my
          > initial take on the dimple marks is as follows:
          >
          > 1. It probably doesn't function in the same way as
          > the asterisk.
          >
          > 2. Similarly, it probably doesn't function in the
          > same way as the metobelus.
          >
          > 3. It does seem to signal something with the line or
          > lines among which it is placed.
          >
          > 4. It seems very probable that the scribe is
          > manipulating the text, both in which the dimple mark
          > is written and the surrounding lines. I.e., he is
          > lining up the characters in such a way as to "inflect"
          > meaning. Perhaps phonetic (if the text is being read
          > out loud), and/or graphic (if the text is being read),
          > or some combination between the two.
          >
          > 5. If the previous point carries any probability,
          > then the dimple mark might be understood as either (a)
          > a cautionary sign warning the reader to read
          > correctly, or (b) a marker to prod the read to seek
          > more meaning from the line(s).
          >
          > I have looked at several of the other instances in the
          > Gospel of Mark, and there does seem to be *both*
          > phonetic and graphic implications to the signs. Still
          > more, in Mark 14:63 you have a ptcp. (nom. case)
          > working with an acc. noun. You can view the image at:
          >
          >
          > http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/
          >
          > Why the discord in grammar? Surely the scribe would
          > have seen this, which does seem tied to the dimple
          > mark. The scripture at this juncture seems to invite
          > further reading. Yet, in this example, to find
          > further meaning one must read "the son" in contracted
          > form. Moreover, the context of the dimple marks is,
          > of course, the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of
          > Jesus. My hunch is that the context has a bearing
          > upon the appearance of the dimple marks too. Any
          > speculation you might have regarding the dimple marks
          > I would greatly welcome.
          >
          > Sincerely,
          >
          > Webber Young.
          >
          >
          >
          > --- "gfsomsel@..." <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
          >
          > > I was looking at your three examples and had the
          > > thought that these dimple marks seem to serve a
          > > similar purpose to our hyphen. In the 2nd and 3rd
          > > examples this seems quite logical
          > > 2. XITW-
          > > NA
          > > 3. KATE-
          > > KRINAN
          > > This doesn't seem to work in quite the same way for
          > > example 1. There could probably be no confusion
          > > regarding the association here
          > > 1. KAI OYESQE TON-
          > > hUION TOU ANQRWPOU
          > > Nevertheless, the TON would be construed with hUION.
          > >
          > >
          > > george
          > > gfsomsel
          > > _________
          > >
          > > -- George Young <webber_young@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > One other thing. To answer your question about the
          > > dimple marks in the Gospel of Mark, I have looked at
          > > them carefully, and my tentative conclusion is that
          > > the dimple marks are placed beside a line of text
          > > that
          > > has more than one reading. I have provided three
          > > examples of this phenomenon at:
          > >
          > > http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/
          > >
          > > Thank you for your comments.
          > >
          > > Sincerely,
          > >
          > > Webber Young.
          > >
          > >
        • George Young
          Dear James Snapp: I was unaware that diple was the scholarly term used for these strange marks. Critical terms are important and do carry and convey meaning
          Message 4 of 17 , May 19, 2006
            Dear James Snapp:

            I was unaware that "diple" was the scholarly term used
            for these strange marks. Critical terms are important
            and do carry and convey meaning in debate. However, I
            am going to rename these marks *dimples* for the
            following reasons:

            1. The word "diple" or "dipple" does not exist in the
            English language, nor does it have any Latin or Greek
            root.

            2. However, the word "dimple" does exist is the
            English language and we know what it means.

            3. Moreover, Codex Sinaiticus was written upon
            *skins* of Antelopes, hence *dimple* seems more
            appropriate because, not only do they looks like
            dimples, but dimples appear upon the surface of the
            skin. Moreover, they are features that are usually
            admired by others.

            With respect to the use of the dimple sign in the
            Gospel of Mark and elsewhere, filling space does not
            seem to explain the use of the sign. Indeed, the more
            I look at its use in the trial, crucifixion and
            resurrection account in the Gospel of Mark, the more I
            am intrigued by its appearance (ch.14ff). Observe, for
            instance, that the dimple sign appears 60 times in
            this section of the Gospel. Previously I had given
            examples of how the sign might indicate anagrams in
            the line(s) to which it is placed.

            However, perhaps I need to back up for a moment in my
            discussion. One needs to acknowledge the *culture* of
            Sinaiticus' Scribes in order to fully appreciate how
            they viewed their own vocation and work to which they
            applied themselves. In other words, the vellum, the
            page, the leaves of the codex were viewed as sacred
            space, upon which the scribe would write the Sacred
            Signs, the Hieroglyphic Message. That the text of the
            Gospel is more than linear is evident from the many
            logograms throughout Sinaiticus. Even more
            interesting, though, is the fact that logograms
            (pictograms?), even the face of the text itself at
            times conveys/corresponds to the Message. See for
            example the image at:

            http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/

            The Scribes would have probably seen themselves at
            part of a much older lineage, perhaps even associating
            themselves with the "Wisemen," the MAGOI of old.
            Hence, they would have acquired various signs and
            symbols that meant something to them, but to us they
            are hieroglyphic - they are hard to read and
            understand. Furthermore, it is helpful to keep in
            mind too that when this document was written it comes
            at the end of a long line of martyrs (ca. 250 years).
            Secret signs, symbols and so forth were a part of this
            early Christian culture. We see evidence of this in
            Sinaiticus.

            Still more, the fidelity to the ancient Scripture, and
            in the case of the ending chapters of Mark, is of
            utmost importance to the scribe. For example, have
            you noticed that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus
            end ***exactly*** the same way? Have you noticed that
            many lines in both codices end exactly the same, some
            of which have a dimple mark? The discussion spills
            over into many areas, but I point this out simply to
            indicate that the Scribe would have know the original
            ending, how it ended and the cues that would indicate
            the original ending. Using four columns to write the
            Holy Text allows the Scribe to manipulate the text in
            a way that would *draw,* not only an authoritative
            ending, but a text where *medium* and *message* cross
            paths.

            Sincerely,

            Webber Young.


            --- "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...> wrote:

            > Dear George Y.,
            >
            > The arrowhead-mark is usually called "diple," not
            > "dimple."
            >
            > The ">" can serve a couple of purposes:
            >
            > (a) to fill space. This is how the diorthotes of
            > Aleph used it.
            >
            > (b) to indicate the presence of quotations from the
            > OT. (In this
            > capacity it may be accompanied with a "<" mark, so
            > as to enclose both
            > sides of a column.)
            >
            > If you consider how the > is consistently used by
            > the diorthotes of
            > Aleph -- i.e., if you look for one explanation which
            > explains its
            > presence wherever it shows up in Aleph -- I think it
            > should be clear
            > that ">" is -- as Lake said -- merely a
            > space-filler. And that's
            > that.
            >
            > This does raise an interesting question, though:
            > why would a
            > diorthotes, or any scribe, feel the need to fill
            > space? Here we may
            > be in the realm of speculation. My own guess is
            > that this diorthotes
            > had seen, somewhere, sometime, a MS in which the
            > scribe had left
            > blank spaces at the ends of lines, in which a
            > "corrector" had added
            > embellishments. And so he added the >'s to prevent
            > that sort of
            > thing.
            >
            > Yours in Christ,
            >
            > James Snapp, Jr.
            > Curtisville Christian Church
            > Elwood, Indiana (USA)
            > www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >



            **************************************



            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com
          • George Young
            Dear George: The Dimple Mark (or *sign* as Tischendorf pointed out), was perplexing for him and others as well. In his Prolegomena to Sinaiticus he notes what
            Message 5 of 17 , May 19, 2006
              Dear George:

              The Dimple Mark (or *sign* as Tischendorf pointed
              out), was perplexing for him and others as well. In
              his Prolegomena to Sinaiticus he notes what appears to
              him to have been its function in the manuscript.
              Interestingly enough, he does (in a footnote) mention
              its association with the "T" (p. 8*, note #1). In
              other words, the letter T and the > sign seem to
              function at times, or be associated with, anagrams
              and/or logograms, and/or pictograms. *See the example
              I provide at

              http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/

              as well as my reply to James Snapp re: Dimples.

              However, I am suspicious that content and context,
              message and medium are at play here in the scribes
              mind. The Dimple Sign may have its origin in some
              other set of signs besides the Greek alphabet. It has
              correlations withg other Near Eastern scripts. A
              close up of the sign suggests that it must be written
              with one, maybe two strokes of the stylus. I am still
              analyzing the mark and gathering information. I will
              have more to say later. But it is also interesting to
              observe that a similar sign is used in the margins of
              Codex Alexandrinus, although being a different scribe
              and a different codex and a different time might
              render this observation unfruitful.

              Thank you for your comments.

              Sincerely,

              Webber Young



              --- "George F. Somsel" <gfsomsel@...> wrote:

              > Webber,
              >
              > It might have been wiser if I had consulted
              > Tischendorf previously
              > rather than speculating regarding the use of the
              > "dipple" mark. Here
              > is what little he has to say on the subject. I
              > imagine it should be
              > verified though I should think he knew whereof he
              > spoke.
              >
              > " signum in margine indicat ea quae ex Vetere
              > Testamento citantur"
              >
              > It would be advisable therefore to see if in each
              > case an OT
              > quotation is marked by this.
              >
              > george
              > gfsomsel
              > _________
              >
              > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, George
              > Young
              > <webber_young@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > Dear George:
              > >
              > > It seems to me there are several possibilities,
              > > including some association to our hyphen.
              > However, my
              > > initial take on the dimple marks is as follows:
              > >
              > > 1. It probably doesn't function in the same way
              > as
              > > the asterisk.
              > >
              > > 2. Similarly, it probably doesn't function in the
              > > same way as the metobelus.
              > >
              > > 3. It does seem to signal something with the line
              > or
              > > lines among which it is placed.
              > >
              > > 4. It seems very probable that the scribe is
              > > manipulating the text, both in which the dimple
              > mark
              > > is written and the surrounding lines. I.e., he is
              > > lining up the characters in such a way as to
              > "inflect"
              > > meaning. Perhaps phonetic (if the text is being
              > read
              > > out loud), and/or graphic (if the text is being
              > read),
              > > or some combination between the two.
              > >
              > > 5. If the previous point carries any probability,
              > > then the dimple mark might be understood as either
              > (a)
              > > a cautionary sign warning the reader to read
              > > correctly, or (b) a marker to prod the read to
              > seek
              > > more meaning from the line(s).
              > >
              > > I have looked at several of the other instances in
              > the
              > > Gospel of Mark, and there does seem to be *both*
              > > phonetic and graphic implications to the signs.
              > Still
              > > more, in Mark 14:63 you have a ptcp. (nom. case)
              > > working with an acc. noun. You can view the image
              > at:
              > >
              > >
              > > http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/
              > >
              > > Why the discord in grammar? Surely the scribe
              > would
              > > have seen this, which does seem tied to the dimple
              > > mark. The scripture at this juncture seems to
              > invite
              > > further reading. Yet, in this example, to find
              > > further meaning one must read "the son" in
              > contracted
              > > form. Moreover, the context of the dimple marks
              > is,
              > > of course, the trial, crucifixion, and
              > resurrection of
              > > Jesus. My hunch is that the context has a bearing
              > > upon the appearance of the dimple marks too. Any
              > > speculation you might have regarding the dimple
              > marks
              > > I would greatly welcome.
              > >
              > > Sincerely,
              > >
              > > Webber Young.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > --- "gfsomsel@..." <gfsomsel@...> wrote:
              > >
              > > > I was looking at your three examples and had the
              > > > thought that these dimple marks seem to serve a
              > > > similar purpose to our hyphen. In the 2nd and
              > 3rd
              > > > examples this seems quite logical
              > > > 2. XITW-
              > > > NA
              > > > 3. KATE-
              > > > KRINAN
              > > > This doesn't seem to work in quite the same way
              > for
              > > > example 1. There could probably be no confusion
              > > > regarding the association here
              > > > 1. KAI OYESQE TON-
              > > > hUION TOU ANQRWPOU
              > > > Nevertheless, the TON would be construed with
              > hUION.
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > george
              > > > gfsomsel
              > > > _________
              > > >
              > > > -- George Young <webber_young@...> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > One other thing. To answer your question about
              > the
              > > > dimple marks in the Gospel of Mark, I have
              > looked at
              > > > them carefully, and my tentative conclusion is
              > that
              > > > the dimple marks are placed beside a line of
              > text
              > > > that
              > > > has more than one reading. I have provided
              > three
              > > > examples of this phenomenon at:
              > > >
              > > > http://geocities.com/biblical.scholars/
              > > >
              > > > Thank you for your comments.
              > > >
              > > > Sincerely,
              > > >
              > > > Webber Young.
              > > >
              > > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >



              **************************************



              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com
            • Bob Dietel
              ....[13] * Diple*. Hanc scriptores nostri adponunt in libris ecclesiasticorum virorum ad separanda vel [ad] demonstranda testimonia sanctarum Scripturarum.
              Message 6 of 17 , May 20, 2006
                "....[13] > Diple. Hanc scriptores nostri adponunt in libris ecclesiasticorum virorum ad separanda vel [ad] demonstranda testimonia sanctarum Scripturarum. [14] ·> Diple peri sticon. Hanc pri[m]us Leogoras Syracusanus posuit Homericis versibus ad separationem Olympi a caelo. [15] >: Diple periestigmenh, id est cum geminis punctis. Hanc antiqui in his opponebant quae Zenodotus Ephesius non recte adiecerat, aut detraxerat, aut permutaverat. In his et nostri ea usi sunt. [16] »- Diple wbelismenh interponitur ad separandos in comoediis vel tragoediis periodos. [17] Aversa wbelismenh, quotiens strophe et antistrophus infertur. [18] <- Adversa cum obelo ad ea ponitur quae ad aliquid respiciunt, ut (Virg. Aen. 10,88)...."

                -- recorded by the 7th century Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiarum libri XX


                George Young wrote:
                Dear James Snapp:
                
                I was unaware that "diple" was the scholarly term used
                for these strange marks.  Critical terms are important
                and do carry and convey meaning in debate.  However, I
                am going to rename these marks *dimples* for the
                following reasons:
                
                1.  The word "diple" or "dipple" does not exist in the
                English language, nor does it have any Latin or Greek
                root.
                [snip]
                
                   --Bob Dietel
                
                   --dietelb@...
                 
                   --North Cascades Episcopal Missions
                      -- St Aidan Episcopal Church, Camano Island, WA
                      -- Church of the Transfiguration, Darrington, WA
                      -- St Martin & St Francis Episcopal Church, Rockport, WA
                
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... The word diple is found in the Oxford English Dictionary, and its Greek root is DIPLOUS. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson
                Message 7 of 17 , May 20, 2006
                  At 05:45 AM 5/19/2006 -0700, George Young wrote:
                  >1. The word "diple" or "dipple" does not exist in the
                  >English language, nor does it have any Latin or Greek
                  >root.

                  The word "diple" is found in the Oxford English Dictionary,
                  and its Greek root is DIPLOUS.

                  Stephen Carlson

                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                  Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                  Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
                • George Young
                  How interesting! As it turns out, Diple does exist! Its absence in many dictionaries, indicates that its not used very often. But I find it helpful to know
                  Message 8 of 17 , May 22, 2006
                    How interesting! As it turns out, Diple does exist!
                    Its absence in many dictionaries, indicates that its
                    not used very often. But I find it helpful to know
                    that it does have a Greek root. Even more interesting
                    is that the root suggests a "doubling" effect.

                    Sincerely,

                    Webber Young.

                    --- "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
                    wrote:

                    > At 05:45 AM 5/19/2006 -0700, George Young wrote:
                    > >1. The word "diple" or "dipple" does not exist in
                    > the
                    > >English language, nor does it have any Latin or
                    > Greek
                    > >root.
                    >
                    > The word "diple" is found in the Oxford English
                    > Dictionary,
                    > and its Greek root is DIPLOUS.
                    >
                    > Stephen Carlson
                    >
                    > --
                    > Stephen C. Carlson
                    > mailto:scarlson@...
                    > Weblog:
                    > http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                    > Author of: The Gospel Hoax,
                    > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >



                    **************************************



                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com
                  • George Young
                    Dear Bob: Thank you for the exerpt from Isidorus Hispalensis. Very helpful, indeed. I take it that diple in this instance is a loan word taken over into
                    Message 9 of 17 , May 22, 2006
                      Dear Bob:

                      Thank you for the exerpt from Isidorus Hispalensis.
                      Very helpful, indeed. I take it that "diple" in this
                      instance is a loan word taken over into Latin via its
                      Greek origins. I find it very interesting that the
                      diple is associated with other text-critical signs.

                      Thank you for your comments,

                      Webber Young.


                      --- Bob Dietel <dietelb@...> wrote:

                      > "....[13] [14] ·> Diple peri sticon.
                      > Hanc pri[m]us
                      > Leogoras Syracusanus posuit Homericis versibus ad
                      > separationem Olympi a
                      > caelo. [15] >: Diple periestigmenh, id est cum
                      > geminis punctis. Hanc
                      > antiqui in his opponebant quae Zenodotus Ephesius
                      > non recte adiecerat,
                      > aut detraxerat, aut permutaverat. In his et nostri
                      > ea usi sunt. [16] »-
                      > Diple wbelismenh interponitur ad separandos in
                      > comoediis vel tragoediis
                      > periodos. [17] -« Aversa wbelismenh, quotiens
                      > strophe et antistrophus
                      > infertur. [18] <- Adversa cum obelo ad ea ponitur
                      > quae ad aliquid
                      > respiciunt, ut (Virg. Aen. 10,88)...."
                      >
                      > -- recorded by the 7th century Isidorus Hispalensis,
                      > /Etymologiarum
                      > /libri XX
                      >
                      >
                      > George Young wrote:
                      >
                      > >Dear James Snapp:
                      > >
                      > >I was unaware that "diple" was the scholarly term
                      > used
                      > >for these strange marks. Critical terms are
                      > important
                      > >and do carry and convey meaning in debate.
                      > However, I
                      > >am going to rename these marks *dimples* for the
                      > >following reasons:
                      > >
                      > >1. The word "diple" or "dipple" does not exist in
                      > the
                      > >English language, nor does it have any Latin or
                      > Greek
                      > >root.
                      > >
                      > [snip]
                      >
                      > --Bob Dietel
                      >
                      > --dietelb@...
                      >
                      > --North Cascades Episcopal Missions
                      > -- St Aidan Episcopal Church, Camano Island,
                      > WA
                      > -- Church of the Transfiguration, Darrington,
                      > WA
                      > -- St Martin & St Francis Episcopal Church,
                      > Rockport, WA
                      >
                      >



                      **************************************



                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                      http://mail.yahoo.com
                    • mydogregae01
                      The word is an ancient Greek word which the Attic (and other dialects) used to indicate a rejected line or reading. In drama, it was used to indicate a new
                      Message 10 of 17 , May 23, 2006
                        The word is an ancient Greek word which the Attic (and other dialects)
                        used to indicate a rejected line or reading. In drama, it was used to
                        indicate a new speaker (actor). (per LSJ dict.)

                        In the Greek the primary word is DIPLH

                        and our translateration as "diple", is about as close as you can get.
                        The DI- prefix indicates "double" as Carlson shared (OED). It refers
                        to the form of the mark, it has TWO equal parts, two arms or branches
                        emanating from a central point. Similar to >-.

                        As time passed, the Byzantine and Alexandrian scribes used it for
                        indicating quotes, and this is its typical use in most Biblical
                        minuscule manuscripts. Calling or renaming it to "DIMPLE" (or
                        whatever) is not at all justified.
                        Mr. Gary S. Dykes
                        ++++++++++++++++++++++++

                        Gary S. Dykes
                        > How interesting! As it turns out, Diple does exist!
                        > Its absence in many dictionaries, indicates that its
                        > not used very often. But I find it helpful to know
                        > that it does have a Greek root. Even more interesting
                        > is that the root suggests a "doubling" effect.
                        >

                        >
                        > >
                        > > The word "diple" is found in the Oxford English
                        > > Dictionary,
                        > > and its Greek root is DIPLOUS.
                        > >
                        > > Stephen Carlson
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.