Would you not just say "<corr>second</corr>", since without any
knowledge of what the pre-correction text read there is no editorial
choice of how to display this?
On 14/04/2011 21:13, Marjorie Burghart wrote:
> 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?
> <del><gap reason="unknown"/></del>
> 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?
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