<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/21/2020 10:04 PM, De'vID wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+7zAmMKm7kkJB+BEGu4=KiBrgtpJmq7bDw9rcHC4AZGYaA9pg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at
13:39, De'vID <<a href="mailto:de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Given that Pyramus and Thisbe are a pair
who talk to each other through a wall, I am strongly
inclined to believe that {bIS'ub} is some kind of
transformation on "Thisbe". (The "isb" is basically
there in both words. One just has to explain why the
initial "th" became a {b}.)<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<div>In fact, looking at the word as it's written, I'm wondering
if it isn't a transcription error, either by Dr. Okrand or
somebody else. Lowercase "t" could almost be the same as "b"
in handwriting, if one writes the crossbar too short on the
left and the loop curves too high on the right. If it had been
*{tIS'ub}, there would probably be no doubt that it's a pun on
"Thisbe".</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(Does anyone have a printed copy of HolQeD 8:3 to check?)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><b>bIS'ub</b> appears twice in the article. It it's a mistake,
it's a repeated one.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>