Talk:Authors/Ockham/Summa Logicae/Book II/Chapter 17: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "In the 16th paragraph, I suspect that there is an error in the latin text at "Iapides non sunt hic intus". "lapides" would make much more sense, and it is common that an OCR...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In the 16th paragraph, I suspect that there is an error in the latin text at "Iapides non sunt hic intus". "lapides" would make much more sense, and it is common that an OCR process would confuse l and I. I have translated this as "stones". Can someone with access to the source of the text verify this? | In the 16th paragraph, I suspect that there is an error in the latin text at "Iapides (with capital I) non sunt hic intus". "lapides" (with lower case L) would make much more sense, and it is common that an OCR process would confuse l and I. I have translated this as "stones". Can someone with access to the source of the text verify this? | ||
Latest revision as of 19:12, 9 April 2025
In the 16th paragraph, I suspect that there is an error in the latin text at "Iapides (with capital I) non sunt hic intus". "lapides" (with lower case L) would make much more sense, and it is common that an OCR process would confuse l and I. I have translated this as "stones". Can someone with access to the source of the text verify this?