To return to the original issue, I'm still trying to decide whether what
we have is adequate to describe all the emendations/correction to a
manuscript. I'm not sure that what we need is a new element "emend", in
Think of a table: three columns, what sort of emendation; two rows, who
is emending. (a) addition, (b) removal, (c) alteration; (1) scribe, (2)
editor. The following six cells need to be filled, then:
1a) The ancient scribe/stonecutter (or a second hand) adds letters to
the original version of the text.
At EpiDoc we tag this as <add/> (pretty uncontroversially, I think)
2a) The editor adds/restores/conjectures text missing from the source text.
We tag this <supplied reason="omitted"/> (for example: other values of
@reason are also possible).
1b) An ancient scribe removes text from the source (erasure,
2b) Editor considers text to be erroneous, dittography, superfluous, etc.
<sic type="superfluous"/> (vel sim.)
3b) Editor corrects an apparent error, transposition, etc. in the source
<corr/> or <choice><sic>I</sic><corr>T</corr></choice>
It is (3a) therefore, an ancient hand corrects an error or transposition
in the text (adds an upper stroke to a T, etc.), that is the only issue
that we don't have an obvious way to tag. I *believe* that EpiDoc
But we aren't always talking about a <del/> followed by an <add/>. This
is not where an element <emend> would be useful, is it? Any
recommendations? Is this a non-issue?
Dr Gabriel BODARD
Inscriptions of Aphrodisias
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
7, Arundel Street
London WC2R 3DX
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)20 78 48 13 88
Fax: +44 (0)20 78 48 29 80