LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for TEI-L Archives


TEI-L Archives

TEI-L Archives


TEI-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEI-L Home

TEI-L Home

TEI-L  November 2015

TEI-L November 2015

Subject:

Re: Appearance of <app> with empty <lem> or <rdg>

From:

"Robinson, Peter" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Robinson, Peter

Date:

Mon, 30 Nov 2015 05:43:53 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

For what it’s worth: for quite some time (20 years, or more) our collations of Canterbury Tales texts have treated punctuation variation by concatenating the punctuation (commonly, / , a virgule-like character representing something like a mid-line cesura marker) with either the preceding or following word: the preceding in all cases except where the ‘punctuation’ falls at the start of the line, as in the parish-like marker often used to mark a new segment of text.
So this looks like:
aprille ] aprille /
etc
As others have observed: the use of ‘omitted’ is problematic; one might as readily flip the comparison to say “added”.

> On Nov 29, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Christian Thomas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Chris, I am dealing with a similar problem, as I am editing slightly or sometimes severely different versions of one (ideal) text. Although my answer may not be very helpful for your concrete task, it fits in line with Elisa's suggestions resp. follow-up remarks: I would like to add some thoughts following your observation that "differences in punctuation are often rather banal, I nevertheless am inclined to preserve them in the interests of thoroughness…". I dare to even expand your "differences in punctuation" to differences on the token, passage or even paragraph level, e.g. (from my texts) "etc." vs. "pp.", "°" vs. "Grad", "des Mannes" vs. "des Manns", "Jahrhundert" and "saeculum", or abbreviations like "Jh." vs. "saec.", ...
> 
> Given your, I think, very desirable and, since you would want your edition to amend to scientific standards, important aim to be thorough in what you do and want to reach the highest possible level of transparency in how you represent it, one could say that it is a shame that you have to produce a fixed page-wise print output at all. Sorry to say that, but:
> 
> The advantage of (pure) digital output would be that you could offer both in a flexible, data-centered and reader/user-driven way that always remains an adequate representation of your source material. I decided that I do not want the reader/user of my (digital) edition to be patronised as to which difference is important and which is not -- even though what I call patronising might be viewed as a central function of a text's editor. Anyway, I still wanted to prepare some sort of pre-selection of which differences I thought were important  (excluding "etc." vs. "pp."...) to offer a nicely and clearly arranged comparison view, but without eliminating any smallest difference and it impossible to "see them all", if the reader/user wants to.
> 
> So I use the great and (TEI)XML-aware tool juxta, that was already mentioned on the list in one of the previous replies to your post, which easily allows the the reader/user to highlight or ignore certain things like whitespace, small/capital letters at word beginning, punctuation etc. Another kind of variation concerns line breaks, which, one could say, are accidentally per se, or one could say, at least differ accidentally between the two versions of the text, simply depending on the scribes' more or less spacious handwriting and the width of the paper. That in mind I have 'harmonised' the (TEI)XML-annotated transcriptions the text versions a little, but never 'silently', as some editions use(d?) to. I have used <choice><orig><reg> for hyphenation at line breaks and for the kinds of variation that I gave some examples of above. And of course there is <choice><sic><corr> for cases in which one of the (anonymous) scribes I am comparing is clearly misspelling something. The result is a nice and easily accessible account of differences where one scribe has used a completely different term (whereas "Jahrhundert" and "saeculum" can be seen as synonymous) or even added a whole passage.
> 
> But another user/reader could say that these are just the things that matter to his research question or general interest, and indeed for my text witnesses and many other materials it can be very important to have an eye on how many obvious mistakes are contaminating the nice looking manuscript, how many and which abbreviations are used, how often the scribe had to correct herself deleting some character and replacing it with another (<subst><del><add>), and it might be important to see if he or she wrote "Capitain" or "Captain" because you can build a hypothesis on that concerning whether the scribe felt closer to the French than to the English language. And, needless to say that not only in poetry, your example, punctuation can also matter a lot. 
> 
> One of many advantages of the digital representation over its printed counterpart IMHO lies in the multiple opportunities you can offer at the same time: given juxtas flexible template, the reader/user can decide if he or she wants to 'count in' differences in whitespace, small/capital letters, punctuation etc. *And* can decide which xpath should be followed while establishing the 'diff'-view: would you like to see the <sic> or the <corr>ected version, would you like to see it 'harmonised', i.e. <reg>ularised or not? All of these options, of course, can be switched to A or B and again to B or A individually, depending on the user/readers intention. And did I mention that you can generate a critical apparatus view on the fly, based on your current collation and template settings?
> 
> Last remark: juxta is only used as a fine example here, other tools can be used, too, or you can pimp your CSS/XSLT output options for your text view website accordingly. The point I tried to make: Critical editing in the way that you describe can be hindered severely by plotting it on a page in one fixed shape.
> 
> Best,
> Christian 
> 
> --
> Christian Thomas
> Hidden Kosmos: Reconstructing A. v. Humboldt’s »Kosmos-Lectures«
> http://www.culture.hu-berlin.de/hidden-kosmos
> https://twitter.com/avhkv
> 
> Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
> Kultur-, Sozial- und Bildungswissenschaftliche Fakultät
> Institut für Kulturwissenschaft
> Mohrenstraße 40, 10117 Berlin
> Raum:	414, Tel. +49 (0)30 2093 66 147
> E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
> --
> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> Von: Chris Forster <[log in to unmask]>
> Datum: 29.11.2015 22:25 (GMT+01:00)
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Re: Appearance of with empty or
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> Marjorie; thanks very much. I knew there was a "folks usually do *this*" sort of answer that was just lost on me as a rank amateur in textual criticism (and someone who studies the 20th century, where one bumps into these questions somewhat less frequently). 
> 
> I am working on a digital edition of Claude McKay's "Harlem Shadows" (1922) and while the differences in punctuation are often rather banal, I nevertheless am inclined to preserve them in the interests of thoroughness, though if folks have views on when/whether/why to preserve variation in punctuation, I'd be interested in hearing them. One thing I've done is include @types on the <app> ("orthographic," "punctuation," "substantive," etc) so that I could preserve the maximum amount of textual variation in the markup while also filtering some (or all) of it out in a particular output format.
> 
> Elisa, thank you so much for your response; your point about the complexities of print markup is entirely apt, I think, and recalls Jerome McGann's not infrequent insistence on every text being "always marked up" (indeed, the complexities of critical apparatus was one of his favorite pieces of evidence). In the HTML output I've generated [see, for instance, http://harlemshadows.org/america.html], I have a check box for "Highlight Variants." Once the variants are highlighted, one can click on them to cycle through the variants (each of which uses a marker keyed to a particular witness). It's a little janky, but I've grown fond of it...
> 
> For outputting to PDF, though, I'm bound by my facility with LaTeX, and the reledmac package [https://www.ctan.org/pkg/reledmac?lang=en], which is largely handling these complexities; I considered trying marginal notes for apparatus (and may further explore it--it seems possible with reledmac), but footnotes were easier to get working (I don't have any PDF output online yet, or I'd link to it, but it is basically working). reledmac handles the case of ambiguity you mention, Elisa, in exactly the way that Marjorie describes--with numbered superscripts; the ambiguous term is marked with a special command (\sameword{}) (described in reledmac documentation 5.3, "Disambiguation of identical words in the apparatus").
> 
> Thanks folks!
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chris

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991
April 1991
March 1991
February 1991
January 1991
December 1990
November 1990
October 1990
September 1990
August 1990
July 1990
June 1990
April 1990
March 1990
February 1990
January 1990

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager