Talk:venery

Possible TYPOs in the quotation dated 1650

Under etymology 2 ("venery#Etymology_2") of the most recent version or "revision" -- [the one which is dated "00:28, 26 June 2022‎"] -- of this entry ... the entry for "venery" ... (see the URL https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=venery&oldid=67545424 for that specific version or "revision" of this entry), the text of the quotation dated 1650 says:

[…] Opium it ſelf is conceived to extimulate unto venery, and for that intent is ſometimes uſed by Turkes, Perſians, and moſt orientall Nations; […]

and ... I question why some of the words which are usually (now) spelled with an ordinary normal-looking (small) letter "s", are instead shown ... spelled with a different-looking (larger) letter, which was probably popular in 1650

(and even in 1776 ... e.g., in the handwritten versions of the Declaration of Independence which are sometimes printed photographically, or by a method that is "similar to" photography).

I realize that sometimes effects like this are seen, when an automated "OCR" ["optical character recognition"] process is used, as part of an effort to translate something from a scanned "photographic" version of some printed material (typically seen only when very old printed material is involved) to a format for a computer-readable (and ... in some cases, computer- editable and/or displayable) form, such as (what is now [in 2022] called) a "text" file ... such as a *.TXT or *.RTF file, or even a file with a file "type" or file-name "extension" of [something like] .DOCX or .PDF , for example.

It is somewhat understandable when an automated "OCR" ["optical character recognition"] process results in some mistakes being made; partly because -- [and this list of reasons might be incomplete]

1. the print quality might have some variations
2. the condition of the book -- which might be a very old book ... might include some wear and tear, or other changes since when the book was new
3. the translation is typically done (at least initially) by some automated robot (like, a shell script or some other kind of [instance of] computer software) which might not have as much knowledge about older printing styles as a person; and
4. even when the translation is being done by using some "team" methods that can [ideally] include some "checking" by at least one person, who might be expected to incorporate some knowledge about printing styles, and other relevant knowledge, when making some 'judgment calls' regarding possible [alleged or 'suspected'] errors by the automated robot ... even a human proofreader can make a mistake, and/or can have some shortcomings ... either regarding knowledge or regarding the degree of careful attention to detail.

Was it intentional [?], on someone's part, to include the character "ſ" in at least 5 places ("ſelf", "ſometimes", "uſed", "Perſians", and "moſt", were the 5 that I noticed) in the quotation dated 1650 -- ? --

If so, then perhaps some discussion would be in order, before I (or ...anyone) starts to (be "BOLD", and) just change each of those weird "ſ" characters, to an ordinary normal-looking (small) letter "s". (I was about to "suggest" that, but ... it might be appropriate to get some advice first, before proceeding.)

By the way, I understand that the discussion (about this) that might be in order ... should probably happen somewhere like a "Tea Room", or ... some place like that. Maybe not here. Therefore, I intend to (if someone else does not do this first) include a link, pointing to this "comment" section of this "Talk:" page, somewhere like [such as] a "Tea Room".

Any comments? Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Schwartz: We intentionally quote using s or ſ (read about the usage here), whichever is used in the text. It is not from OCR. For more examples, see the quotations at supplicate, which will be Word of the day on 6 August. J3133 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @J3133 , for that helpful reply.

I had been thinking that some readers might find it less confusing, if words that are ["today"] spelled with a 'small' "s", were to be spelled that way here ... so that they would appear (to readers unfamiliar with old styles of printing) in a familiar form.

It sounds like it was "intentional" to include the character "ſ" here (and ... some other places).

I guess I will leave it up to others [to decide] whether or not it is appropriate to include a w:hyperlink pointing to that "explanation" page -- namely, the web page [that you mentioned] at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C5%BF#English -- somewhere "near" the places where some of those "ſ" character instances do now appear in a quotation. -- Mike Schwartz (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)