The manipulated images are capable of minimizing visual information that one's eye and brain can pick up to tell whether edges are created by a break in direction of the stroke or other factors, including especially the thickness of the line created by the ink of the pen, which in the case of the character under discussion appears to taper from wider at the top to thinner at the bottom, perhaps with some variation along the way.
The non-modified images can also be read incorrectly, but at least they are a better basis for discussion, especially when drawing on relevant training for understanding what it shows about the direction of the stroke of the character.
I have always agreed here that we would benefit from relevant insights from experts. Ultimately the desired outcome would essentially be to have these relevant insights informed by all the relevant data and then presented in a journal article outlining the relevant considerations and addressing any objections.
A discussion forum like this is capable of getting ahead of its skis and throwing up ideas that may not hold up to closer examination, such as that a paint program can produce true conclusions here and not merely illustrate those true conclusions that are already justified.
It's also capable of generating ideas that may be deemed inconclusive, at least based on the present state of discussion here in this thread. As I previously mentioned, I am willing to view the placement of the accent this way. But I should mention that the accent was considered relevant by those who have more experience and expertise than I do, and I agree that I should follow up.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 5:59 am
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 1:36 am
I have heard from a couple experts here myself. They have noted (a) that the character here starts out going southeast/northwest [atypical for sigma], (b) that the stroke is unbroken [not observed in sigmas], and (c) that the accent placed directly over the character is indicative in this case.
To examine just (c) at the moment, why is the accent placed directly over the character indicative
in this case?
Are there not other cases where the accent is placed to the right of the accented vowel? I have previously pointed to the accent being placed over the Sigma in εὐθὺς on III 2 (second to the last word), while the accent over the Nun in τὸν in the same line III 2 (second word) is perhaps an even clearer example.
Accent over Nun.png
Have your informant(s) been over the entire document and determined how the scribe decided whether to place the accent over the accented vowel or the letter to its right? And if not, why should we accept the claim that the accent placed directly over the character is indicative
in this case when it is not in others?
Best,
Ken
A few people were asked for a few moments of their time. None of them thought it looked like a sigma, and anyone who commented thought it looked like an iota. In all, fifteen people have commented that it looks like an iota.
They were provided photographs of all 3 pages and given no guidance on how to comment. So they were not given a transcription with sigma, they were not informed of the opinion of Secret Mark authors, they were not provided with image manipulation program outputs, they were not instructed to focus on particular details or comparanda, etc.
On the three points, which were mentioned at their initiative, different points were mentioned or emphasized by different people who responded.
Tselikas performed a detailed study informed by relevant expertise not only on this point but of the entire transcription, being the only one with relevant expertise who has substantially investigated the accuracy of the received transcription that I know about. On the question of the transcription here, Tselikas found that it was an iota.
Tselikas doesn't go into much detail in writing on his conclusion here. I agree that what we want is an informed study, not only drawing on experts but also bringing in all the relevant considerations. In this thread we have seen some of the things that will be considered as throwing doubt on the subject. If everyone or at least most people with an interest in the subject have been working with a different assumption for a long time, then it's relatable that they would want to have the explanation of why it is to be understood as an iota to be thoroughly tested. It's also understandable that the facts that indicate in favor of this conclusion may not be readily understood that way, without a more developed apparatus here.
I don't expect everyone involved here to accept any of this right now. I believe we need the discussion to develop more fully before we have reached the point where everyone - even the Secret Mark experts - is capable of recognizing the point that it's an iota. Those who have offered publicly interpretations assuming it's a sigma may be the slowest to turn around.
I am appreciative of the counter-point on the accent you brought up on the thread. I would have to follow up with them to have a sense of why they think the accent placement is relevant and whether they think its relevance is (a) conditional on additional facts or (b) probabilistic and supplementary to the other two points mentioned.
I appreciate the objections that you're bringing up in this thread, Ken. They are exactly the kinds of points that should be considered.