I followed the link to Fiddyment et al's paper and found it quite interesting. However in the Material And Methods section; "6): pocket Bibles (height + width < 385 cm)", or pocket bible height plus width 151 inches they must have had really big pockets! Grin.
OK they did note in their supporting data pages millimeters not centimeters as do other references I found elsewhere but I have to admit, that 385 cm number did throw me for a minute.
Not necessarily in order.
1. T.M.I.
2. Ew-w-w.
3. "Erdu" <----> "Urdu" got me wrapped around the axle. Was looking for some Vedic Vellum angle.
4. Fascinating, informative, fun post. A gem.
5. Thanks.
You are welcome! I miss those days of having hours to read through journals finding odd little factoids.
I followed the link to Fiddyment et al's paper and found it quite interesting. However in the Material And Methods section; "6): pocket Bibles (height + width < 385 cm)", or pocket bible height plus width 151 inches they must have had really big pockets! Grin.
OK they did note in their supporting data pages millimeters not centimeters as do other references I found elsewhere but I have to admit, that 385 cm number did throw me for a minute.
That is a heck of a typo!
Kind of TMI but also neat to be connected with people from so long ago.