To return to the original issue, I'm still trying to decide whether what
we have is adequate to describe all the emendations/correction to a
manuscript. I'm not sure that what we need is a new element "emend", in

Think of a table: three columns, what sort of emendation; two rows, who
is emending. (a) addition, (b) removal, (c) alteration; (1) scribe, (2)
editor. The following six cells need to be filled, then:

1a) The ancient scribe/stonecutter (or a second hand) adds letters to
the original version of the text.

At EpiDoc we tag this as <add/> (pretty uncontroversially, I think)

2a) The editor adds/restores/conjectures text missing from the source text.

We tag this <supplied reason="omitted"/> (for example: other values of
@reason are also possible).

1b) An ancient scribe removes text from the source (erasure,
subpuncting, etc.)


2b) Editor considers text to be erroneous, dittography, superfluous, etc.

<sic type="superfluous"/> (vel sim.)

3b) Editor corrects an apparent error, transposition, etc. in the source

<corr/> or <choice><sic>I</sic><corr>T</corr></choice>

It is (3a) therefore, an ancient hand corrects an error or transposition
in the text (adds an upper stroke to a T, etc.), that is the only issue
that we don't have an obvious way to tag. I *believe* that EpiDoc
currently recommends:

<rdg resp="hand1"><del/></rdg>
<rdg resp="hand2"><add/></rdg>

But we aren't always talking about a <del/> followed by an <add/>. This
is not where an element <emend> would be useful, is it? Any
recommendations? Is this a non-issue?



Dr Gabriel BODARD

Inscriptions of Aphrodisias
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
Kay House
7, Arundel Street
London WC2R 3DX

Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)20 78 48 13 88
Fax: +44 (0)20 78 48 29 80