Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yitzhak:

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>wrote:

>
> The inscription dates from the 8th century BCE and is in Aramaic.  This
> makes
> it hard to compare it to Hebrew with respect to its matres lectionis.  I
> don't
> think it suggests much in the way of Hebrew in any case, and perhaps the
> primary example you are thinking of, bny "sons of", is in my opinion not
> a mater lectionis, but Aramaic morphology.  A probable mater lectionis is
> -w- for -o-.
>
> I meant -W- for -o- or -u-, as in $WR (line 3) or CWDN (line 4).


> As for the size, it is going to be as large as you print it.


What counts is sharpness, not physical size. The sharpness will fall apart
at resolutions less than 100 ppi


>  You say it is half
> size, but they claim to have found a 2 ft x 3 ft stele.


Screen resolution is about 100 ppi (pixels per inch), and at that resolution
the image comes to about 1 x 1.5 feet. Now if I were to print it at full
size, I would want it to have a resolution of 300 ppi and the printer 1000
dpi, making the resolution at 7200 x 10,800 pixels, or there about.


>  You are looking at a
> printout a foot and a half tall?  It seems, from the resolution of the
> image,
> to be at approx. 500-600 pixels per feet, or about 40-50 pixels per inch,
> giving about 20 pixels per cm.  So, if you print it at 20 pixels per cm,
> you'll get a life size image.  I really think 20 pixels per cm is great as
> far
> as resolution goes, in light of the size of the inscription.  (This isn't
> some
> miniature bulla or seal).
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
>

Talk about printing is somewhat moot, as I don't have a printer. We are a
family of four, I and my three sons, and even though we all are heavy users
of computers, we printed out so seldom that the inks dried up between uses.
So we just got rid of the printer. It was far cheaper to have the occasional
pages printed elsewhere.

Karl W. Randolph.