← Back to context

Comment by lidavidm

1 day ago

Isn't that backwards? The nonexistent character is in the -digitized- version so presumably OCR or something got 彊 wrong, that's not saying that 彁 was used in the -print- version.

Indeed, the source link is about exactly this: a crappy scan appears to have 彁 but a better copy reveals it was 彊.

I think you're both saying the same thing: the digitization of the article wouldn't have been the source, since 彁 would have had to exist before the digitization happened in order for the OCR to misread 彊 as 彁.