Here is a preview and comparison with the existing ones.
My transliteration makes it easier than ever before to compare both with translation and original manuscript, as well as to quote fragments or words (for example in forum discussions), since no strange letters are used (for example Jensma's Ð or the Æ that Ottema used).
 |
| transliteration fragment Ott, 2016 (preview) |
[045]: page number as in original manuscript
1, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, etc. (left column): 'verse' numbers, based on line number. If more verses start at the same line, they can be distinguished a/b/c, when referring to them.
1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, etc. (superscript, in between text): line numbers. If a word is split in the original, it is printed at the end of the word.
Verses are sentences or coherent parts of sentences. Chapter or paragraph titles are printed bold. Corrections or unclear letters are printed italic.
Page numbers of Ottema and Sandbach are printed between brackets () in the text.
 |
| transliteration fragment Ottema, 1872 (also used in 1876 edition and by Sandbach) |
Ottema's transliteration had many errors and was relatively hard to compare with the translation. Page numbers of the original manuscript were not added.
 |
| transliteration fragment Jensma, 2006 |
Jensma's transliteration is easy to compare with the original manuscript, which in the book was printed next to it on the left. Switching between transliteration and translation, printed right of it, is more difficult.
 |
| transliteration fragment De Heer, 2008 (my copy became wet, ink is not water-proof) |
De Heer did a great job creating a special JOL-font. Disadvantage i.m.o. is, that people who don't have it, can't quote (for example in a forum or on a blog). I also miss line numbers, for comparison with the original manuscript. Comparison between transliteration and (Dutch) translation is very easy, which helped me much when I first got to know the OLB. This was the very first copy I ever saw and read.
