Errors which are readily attributed to printer’s lapses have been corrected, as noted below. There are a number of lapses in the punctuation of quoted matter, which have been rectified as described in the table below. Spelling has been retained, except where the printer seems most likely to be at fault. The Greek ‘ou’ ligature is represented here using the Latin version ‘?’. Likewise, the typesetting of Hebrew is problematic in many places, particularly with the use of cantillation marks (tropes). In most cases, cantillation for single words or phrases are moot, but the author frequently includes them, not always accurately. Where modern fonts are unable to represent the printed characters, or where the typesetting was faulty, the text will follow the currently accepted forms. Vowel marks are sometimes omitted in the original, and are given here as printed. The combination hataf-patah is frequently reversed, and has been corrected everywhere with no further notice. Likewise, the printer seems to have frequently confused the trope merkha with the vowel point meteg, i.e. ???????????yeŠaretÛ for ???????????yeŠaretÛ. The standard Hebrew has been followed here, as noted below. In this version, bidirectional text cannot be reliably rendered. The author provided a transliteration of most of the Hebrew words and phrases; however a separate transliteration has been included here based on the scheme provided by the Society of Biblical Literature. These appear in bold as yeŠaretÛ. These transliterations necessarily lose the cantillation marks. (The same has been done for the Arabic and Syriac words, which are also printed right-to-left.) On p. 484, the Hebrew characters ????h?am are printed using an unknown cantillation mark . The standard form has been substituted. On p. 461, the Hebrew word ?????bÛt requires the vav as printed be a shuruk (??Û) to be read as a vowel 'Û'. The character was printed without the dot, and is corrected here. Arabic, Coptic, and Syriac scripts are rendered using the available Unicode characters. The script used by the author frequently could not be confirmed to match either the stated translations or the transliterations he provided. The Syriac script seems to be the so-called Western script. The Unicode characters follow the Estrangela, which was most widely used. Many of the Arabic words were either unrecognizable, did not match the transliterations given by the author, or both. Best guesses of the author’s intent are provided in the text. On p. 390, the Arabic word which appears to be ?????????mtsua?d , seems incorrect. The most likely word is ???????mi??ad, which has the meaning given by the author. This has been substituted. On p. 592, the maqqef (?) in ????????????????btbly? is misplaced. The word, from 1. Samuel i. 16, should be ????????????????bat-beliyya?al, and has been corrected. On p. 620, the Arabic ????gzn does not exist; the author may have intended either ???????adn which means Eden or ?????gadan, which means languor, softness, limpness. etc. The former was used here. Problematic cases with the original images and their replication here, are given below:
On p. 95, the quoted phrase from Ephesians 6:5, ‘And ye masters, do the same things unto them;[’], is missing the closing single quotation mark. The words which follow the semicolon seem to be a paraphrase. The punctuation has been added. On p. 141, the paragraph beginning ‘In Judg. iii. 7, 8, we have as follows:’ has an unclosed double quotation. It is not clear where the citation ends, and the text has been given here as printed. On p. 486, the citation of Jeremiah li. 55 is misprinted as verse 15. Immediately following, the first of two citations of Isaiah li. 13 should have been to verse 15. These have been corrected. The second reference to verse 13 is correct. In Lesson IV of Study VII (pp. 516–536), the punctuation of the extracts is inconsistent, and, with just a few exceptions noted below, has been retained as printed. On p. 630, the Praet. 2 m. conjugation of ????bdt is printed as ???????????bdt, which is an invalid combination of vowel marks on the leading ayin. Either ???????????abadta or ??????????obadta would be valid.
|