On 07/04/11 15:58, Robert Whalen wrote:
> And yet perhaps there should be a further distinction between
> changes deemed scribal revisions and those which appear to be
> scribal corrections. Changing a word, after all, is not the same
> thing as changing an apparently incorrect spelling or
> punctuation. But I suppose @type could take care of this.
I'd second this. I'd use @type on the <add> or <del> to
categorise the nature of the addition or deletion (which may, or
may not, also be indicative of the reason for it). And like you
and Matthew I view editorial changes done by the editor of the
electronic text (corr/sic/etc.) as fundamentally different from
changes actually present in the manuscript (even if they are done
for the same reason). I do agree with Torsten that these are
semantically similar to add/del, but the major factor being
whether they are present in the physical object.
Maybe this is a fetishistic approach to manuscripts as objects,
but it seems reasonable to me.
> Rob W
> On 4/7/11 10:46 AM, Matthew James Driscoll wrote:
>> There's been a fair amount of discussion on this over the years. My position has always been that there is no distinction more fundamental to textual scholarship than that between what is actually present in the text and what isn't (but perhaps ought to have been) and that the two should therefore be treated differently, viz. by employing two separate pairs of elements,<sic> and<corr> for editorial emendations,<add> and<del> for corrections made in the manuscript itself. This is stated in the Guidelines, though perhaps not as explicitly as it should be.
>> All the best,
>> M. J. Driscoll
>> Arnamagnĉan Institute
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Torsten Schassan
>> Sent: 7. april 2011 16:16
>> To:[log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: scribal correction
>> Hi Gabby,
>>> 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.
>> That's exactly my question and problem: Does add/del make clear enough
>> it's a correction here? Doesn't sic/corr imply the deletion and
>> addition? No semantic difference between these pairs?
>>> 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...
>> You are right, in my case the scribe is it's own editor. But the
>> guidelines do not speak about an editor or that it may be *only* an editor!
>> And my point is something else (taking up again what I say above): maybe
>> it's only my (mis-?)understanding if I distinguish
>> -<choice> is for editorial interventions in the process of editing(!)
>> -<subst> is for editorial interventions in the source?
>> Thus, isn't subst/corr something different from choice/corr? And isn't
>> subst/corr semantically close to subst/del/add?
>> Best, Torsten
> Robert Whalen, PhD
> Director and Editor, The Digital Temple
> Professor, Department of English
> Northern Michigan University
> 1401 Presque Isle Avenue
> Marquette, MI 49855
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> /The truth will set you free. But not until its finished with you./
> - David Foster Wallace
Dr James Cummings, InfoDev,
Computing Services, University of Oxford