Current protocol is to translate "canulle" as "thin cane" (e.g. for cages, 6v). This is awkward, especially when it comes to translating "grosse canulle" (currently "large thin cane"). MHS in the vocab suggests "pipe" as an alternative, and the context suggests that they are indeed hollow. Can we use this instead? Or what about "rod"?
@ps2270
Cotgrave: little cane, pipe, reed or hollow straw, so I don't know why we had "thin". We should change the glossary entry to take out the "thin" and give more of Cotgrave's definition, http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cotgrave/search/156l.html. DMF - implies use as pipe or straw The other instance on 66v is now trans as "tube" Thinking aloud: I think we can leave as "cane" altho caneworking in glass today implies solid rods of glass, whereas Cotgrave is insistent on the hollowness as a feature of "cannule". We could supp with "small hollow" in the first instance, then translate as canes in all further instances. Or we could have an editorial comment. Or we could change to pipe or straw or tube. Tube is good French by 15th c, but not in OED until mid 17th-c. Interestingly, "cane" in OED in 16thc does imply "hollow" because it's an actual plant reed. Which makes one wonder if on 66v, the a-p was using an actual reed (so our "tube" gives a very different connotation). Decision: change glossary entry. 6v: Trans as "cane." Supp with "small hollow" in first instance, and trans as cane for the rest of 6v; 66v: change to "hollow cane" (leave the small). I realize this is translating for meaning in a way that contravenes "consistency", which is the way we have been approaching this, so if you think this is too much of a departure, please don't hesitate to speak up.