I’m rather puzzled by this. Is meo(a) meant to convey that "mea" is a possible expansion of "m."? I don’t think that works at all in Latin, since "patri" is masculine, but I don’t see (without more context) how else to read it.
I’d probably do something like:
Nolite timere, pusillus grex, complacuit patri <app><lem source="#ed"><choice><seg cert="high">meo</seg><seg cert="low">mea</seg></choice></lem><rdg wit="#codd"><abbr>m<am>.</am></abbr></rdg><rdg wit="#Vulg">vestro</rdg></app> dare uobis regnum.
Perhaps "meo(a)" means something like "The only possible expansions of "m." are "meo" and "mea". I give the latter for completeness’ sake, but parenthesize it because it is impossible." In which case, I might do it differently. I might also restrict the <choice> only to o(a), depending on my encoding policy, so <lem>me<choice><seg cert="high>o</seg><seg cert="low">a</seg></choice></lem> or something like that.
Hope this helps…
> On May 2, 2015, at 18:17 , Burghart Marjorie <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear all,
> I would like to encode an existing critical edition, where this is found:
> Nolite timere, pusillus grex, complacuit patri meo(a) dare uobis regnum.
> (a) meo] conieci, m. codd., uestro Vulg.
> Some explanations: this means that the wor "meo" in the sentence is a conjecture of the editor ("conieci").
> All the manuscripts bear the same abbreviated reading, "m." ("m. codd.").
> But this sentence is actually a biblical quotation, and in the Latun Bible, the Vulgate, the reading here is "uestro" ("uestro Vulg."). This is why the editor thinks "m."stands for "meo", i.e. also a pronoum but for a different person, which makes perfect sense.
> How would you guys encode this?