I think this is pretty much canonical subst/add/del, isn't it? I would
say that even if the correction doesn't involve physical erasure or
strikeout of the incorrect form, it is still effectively (semantically)
deleted by virtue of the addition of a correct form above it.
Corr is rather for cases where the *editor* corrects an erroneous or
non-standard form in the manuscript (not corrected by the scribe).
That's not what's going on in your case, unless I'm misunderstanding...
On 07/04/2011 14:51, Torsten Schassan wrote:
> in a manuscript a scribe deleted a word and added supralinear the
> correct word. Thus, in the manuscript we have both a substitution *and*
> a correction. Thus, both pairs add/del *and* sic/corr could be used here.
> What would you think is the appropriate encoding here, especially if one
> wants to declare @place which is not available for<corr>?
> <corr><add place="supralinear">nundinis</add></corr>
> <add place="supralinear">nundinis</add>
> On the other hand, isn't it all clear that the correction, if child of
> <subst>, consists of deletion and addition? Thus resulting in
> <corr place="supralinear">nundinis</corr>
> which would make it necessary to add<corr> to att.placement which seems
> no bad idea anyway?
> Best, Torsten
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)
Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980