On 26-12-2014 14:50, Richard Smith wrote: > On 24/12/14 20:18, melanie chesnel wrote: > >> I don't see why Richard van Schaik says such a definite 28 as 20 >> seems just as likely/unlikely to me, particularly as over 21 was >> often written as "of age". > > I can't speak for the specific reasons why Richard van Schaik says it's > far more likely to be a 28 than 20, but he's right. An '8' was often > written much more like a lower-case Greek delta, and in this case the > lower loop, while very small, is very clearly formed. The upper loop is > perhaps atypically large, but not so much as to cast doubt on the > identity of the digit. It would take a lot to convince me that it were > anything but an '8'. And whilst you're right that people over 21 were > often just given as "of age", considerably more often their ages were > given. Let me say it this way, English and Dutch in pure handwriting per letter doesn't differ much if compared in about equal time frames. So as long as local knowledge is not involved I can help a bit sometimes. When local knowledge becomes involved then I look at the contribution of e.g. John below in giving Milton and elaborating. I do think a lot of you could per letter read a lot of old Dutch (though also there were some nasty handwritings) but would have similar problems when local knowledge is involved. Richard -- Richard van Schaik [email protected] http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/ The world is one big madhouse and this is main office.

On 27-12-2014 0:56, Richard van Schaik wrote: > On 26-12-2014 14:50, Richard Smith wrote: >> On 24/12/14 20:18, melanie chesnel wrote: >> >>> I don't see why Richard van Schaik says such a definite 28 as 20 >>> seems just as likely/unlikely to me, particularly as over 21 was >>> often written as "of age". >> >> I can't speak for the specific reasons why Richard van Schaik says it's >> far more likely to be a 28 than 20, but he's right. An '8' was often >> written much more like a lower-case Greek delta, and in this case the >> lower loop, while very small, is very clearly formed. The upper loop is >> perhaps atypically large, but not so much as to cast doubt on the >> identity of the digit. It would take a lot to convince me that it were >> anything but an '8'. And whilst you're right that people over 21 were >> often just given as "of age", considerably more often their ages were >> given. > > Let me say it this way, English and Dutch in pure handwriting per letter > doesn't differ much if compared in about equal time frames. So as long > as local knowledge is not involved I can help a bit sometimes. When > local knowledge becomes involved then I look at the contribution of e.g. > John below in giving Milton and elaborating. > > I do think a lot of you could per letter read a lot of old Dutch (though > also there were some nasty handwritings) but would have similar problems > when local knowledge is involved. auch, shoot me ....... letter in this way is Dutch, character it should have been above. Richard -- Richard van Schaik [email protected] http://www.fmavanschaik.nl/ The world is one big madhouse and this is main office.