Well, it would in the case where the original word is illegible.
What if you are encoding an existing print edition, and you don't know
the reason (illegible indeed, or maybe the editor didn't care to mention
the original word).
Would this be the right solution?
So the recommendation is to use <subst> with <add>and <del> for every
case where a word has been corrected?
Le 14/04/2011 21:43, Syd Bauman a écrit :
> Not sure I am answering the right question. But would
> <del><gap reason="illegible"/></del>
> express what you want?
>> I'm trying to complete the "critical apparatus cheatsheet" I
>> recently started, and I was wondering what would be the best
>> practice recommended by the community when a witness bears a
>> correction, and the original (/ante corr./) word(s) is/are not
>> legible or not known for whatever reason. This is what, in a
>> classical "printed" apparatus would be expressed with something
>> like (considering the V witness has the same reading as the base
>> text, but after having been corrected by the scribe):
>> a) questio] /post corr. V/
>> Here, for obvious reasons, the<subst> with<add> and<del> cannot
>> be used;<corr> doe not have this semantic. What would you suggest?
EHESS (pôle de Lyon) / UMR 5648
Histoire et Archéologie des Mondes Chrétiens et Musulmans Médiévaux
18 quai Claude Bernard
69007 Lyon - FRANCE