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> -- "New Philology"?

From:

Elisa <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Elisa <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:53:42 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (103 lines)

Dear list,
We're looking at outputs as Chris initially asked in terms of what has been conventional for print, and perhaps without considering the transformation (in XSLT or XQuery) presumably involved in generating such output from the TEI. I am concerned about the length of the code required to reliably output "omitted" or "added" or their interpretive ilk, and I am also concerned (as others are indicating here) with the necessity of perspective to determine whether a comma was added or removed. Wouldn't it be more reliable to not use these terms at all and simply indicate presence or absence of the comma in the footnote?

One could do that by pulling the contents of the relevant lem or rdg element and outputting it, for each version. I'd want to output that with some extract of the preceding and following text, though it would in that case help to have somehow marked the preceding and following words of a given variant. It's going to be some complex processing anyway, I think.

Best,
Elisa

Sent from my iPad

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Robinson, Peter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> That is rather a long chain of assumptions!
> My own preference would be:
> 
>> <l>I will arise and go now<app><rdg wit="#A">,</rdg><rdg wit="#B" /></app> and go to Innisfree</l>
> 
> I might, or might not, declare that ‘A’ is the more original/Yeats intended text/the better reading text, somewhere else, and I might in some instantiation of the text select the readings of ‘A’.
> 
> I think too there is a confusion about just what is meant by the terms ‘copy text’, ‘base text’, ‘master text’.  An interesting innovation in Anglo-American editing, dating to Greg and Bowers, etc, is that the editor might use a ‘copy text’ which actually is known to be quite some distance from the 'more original/intended/the better reading text’, and which needs significant intervention if it is to serve as any one of these three. In that context, one might mark a reading as <lem> as the reading of the ‘copy text’ without making any presumption about originality/intention/value. It just happens to be that that is the reading of the source chosen to represent the ‘copy text’. A variant of this is ‘best text’ editing, which usually finds that at some points the text needs emendation, and hence again the <lem> will not be the ‘right’ reading. In yet another variant: it’s quite common in digital editing projects to create a ‘base text for collation’ which is optimized to show variation in other (actual) witnesses (compare, for example, the New Testament editors' notion of the ‘beginning text’).  In that case, <lem> means only this is the reading of this concocted base text.
> 
> All of which is a long way of saying that something is <lem> does NOT imply necessarily that the reading of <lem> is right. And as I said at the outset — just what <lem> means has many more parameters than the supposed opposition of traditional/new.  Our practice has been to eschew <lem> for these reasons. As Marjorie’s comments show: there is a disposition to regard the <lem> reading as somehow privileged. In many cases, it 
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:39 AM, Marjorie Burghart <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> Of course. In this case, you will certainly agree that if someone (Chris Forster namely) encodes a textual phenomenon like this:
>> 
>> <l>I will arise and go now<app><lem wit="#A">,</lem><rdg wit="#B" /></app> and go to Innisfree</l>
>> 
>> he means that he has made a decision, for whatever reason, that witness A has the right reading, and witness B is *omitting* the comma? Otherwise, he would have encoded this phenomenon like that: 
>> 
>> <l>I will arise and go now<app><rdg wit="#A">,</rdg><rdg wit="#B" /></app> and go to Innisfree</l>
>> 
>> So when Chris wants to transform his encoding into a print version, categorising the absence of comma in source B as an "omission" is *not a problem, but a feature*. 
>> 
>> 
>> As for the label of "New" philology, as I suppose you are well aware, I did not coin this opposition for rhetorical purpose. This is how this school of textual criticism is self-described, since Stephen Nichols. As to whether it is really new, or whether the opposition is of any interest, I'm sure we can agree. 
>> 
>> Marjorie
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Mail original -----
>> De: "Peter Robinson" <[log in to unmask]>
>> À: "Marjorie Burghart" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Cc: [log in to unmask]
>> Envoyé: Lundi 30 Novembre 2015 14:15:29
>> Objet: Re: Appearance of <app> with empty <lem> or <rdg> -- "New Philology"?
>> 
>> It is simply that if you have source a as
>> cat
>> and source b as 
>> cat,
>> You would see the comma as ‘added’ in source b relative to source a; as ‘omitted ’in source a relative to source b. The problem is having two ways of saying the same thing — and not wishing to imply any sense of priority as to what is relative to what. There might be many reasons for not wanting to imply that either a or b should be seen as more ‘original’, of which supposed affiliation to ‘traditional’ or ‘new philological’ ideas may or may not be a part. I suppose too that I dislike the supposed opposition of ‘traditional’ and ‘new’.
>> 
>> peter
>> 
>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 4:56 AM, Marjorie Burghart <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Sorry if I misunderstood your comment. Could you then elaborate on what you mean by the following? That would surely be helpful.  
>>> 
>>>>> As others have observed: the use of ‘omitted’ is problematic; one might as 
>>>>> readily flip the comparison to say “added”.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marjorie
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Peter Robinson" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> À: "Marjorie Burghart" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Cc: [log in to unmask]
>>> Envoyé: Lundi 30 Novembre 2015 11:49:57
>>> Objet: Re: Appearance of <app> with empty <lem> or <rdg> -- "New Philology"?
>>> 
>>> I don’t think this is anything to do with “new philology” or “traditional philology” or any other label. Nor indeed, with making ‘decisions’ or not making them — making decisions is part of the business of engaging with texts, manuscripts, works, editing. This labelling is simplistic and unhelpful. 
>>> 
>>> It would be nice to keep the rhetoric out of this discussion.
>>> 
>>> Peter
>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 12:42 AM, Marjorie Burghart <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> From: "Peter Robinson" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> As others have observed: the use of ‘omitted’ is problematic; one might as 
>>>>> readily flip the comparison to say “added”.
>>>> 
>>>> I would not say it is problematic at all. It simply is a different school of textual criticism. 
>>>> If you are into "New Philology", then you will not want to make a decision regarding what's been added or omitted. 
>>>> If you are a traditional philologist, making this decision is part of your job as an editor. 
>>>> Since Chris, in his example, uses <lem/>, it seems to me that he places himself in the traditional philology current, and therefore making decisions is necessary. 
>>>> 
>>>> It seems to me that there is a strong temptation of "New Philology" in digital editions. I have often heard that it was "better" not to use <lem/> in the apparatus. It is a perfectly valid position if you're teaching "New Philology", but should be placed in the context of the different theories of editing, and never be presented as matter-of-fact. 
>>>> 
>>>> Best, 
>>>> Marjorie
> 

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

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