Print

Print


In Caedmon's Hymn (p3 SGML) I added an <emend> tag as well. 


> § ii.10     Cædmon’s Hymn: a multimedia edition and archive adds one
> element to the TEI standard: <EMEND>. The new element is identical to
> (a modified form of) the standard TEI element <CORR> in content,
> attributes, and syntax. The main difference is conceptual: in this
> work <CORR> is used to encode physical alterations to the text as it
> appears in a source document; the <EMEND> element is used to encode
> alterations and corrections not involving the physical adaptation of a
> source document. An example of a correction is the (scribal)
> alteration of O ƿero to ƿera. An example of an emendation is the
> alteration of the nonsensical reading tida found in all manuscripts of
> the West-Saxon yldarecension to teode in the critical text.
> 
> 



On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 14:33 +0000, Gabriel BODARD wrote:
> I think there is an important distinction here that Elena is putting her
> finger on that may not be currently supported by TEI element
> distinctions. In the EpiDoc local recommendations we are able to
> distinguish not only between scribal addition and editorial supplement,
> but between scribal deletion and editorial rejection (using
> <add>/<supplied> and <del>/<sic> respectively [with further attribute
> disambiguation in all cases]), but I'm not sure we have such a robust,
> unambiguous policy for the distinction between scribal correction and
> editorial emendation. I for one would be grateful for recommendations on
> how to resolve this question.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Gabriel
> 
> Elena Pierazzo a crit :
> > Francois,
> > 
> > by "not strong enough" I was alluding to what I consider a fundamental
> > difference on what attributes and elements are meant for, as, in my
> > opinion,  an element is meant to encode a "category" and an attribute is
> > meant to encode a type of a category or a characteristic of the same
> > category (I know I'm simplifying a lot...). In my assertion  there  was
> > not  a demonization  of attributes at all.
> > 
> > My point is, if corrections made by a scribe and the one made by an
> > editor are two different categories, maybe we need two different
> > elements. So my question is: are corrections and emendations (the former
> > being made by a scribe/author of a primary source and the latter by a
> > modern editor/encoder) two different categories? I believe they are, as
> > when we are encoding we can describe what we find in our primary source
> > and also doing something on the text, so we can describe a correction
> > occurring in our  copy text or me can correct the text ourselves.
> > 
> > I see a fundamental ambiguity in using <corr> for both circumstances.
> > The same ambiguity does not seem present for additions, as we have <add>
> > for a scribe addition and <supplied> for an editorial addition. But,
> > again there is an ambiguity for deletions for which there is just <del>
> > that encodes both scribe deletions and text the has been rejected as
> > superfluous by an editor.
> > 
> > Elena
> 
> 
-- 
Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
Department Chair and Associate Professor of English
Director, Digital Medievalist Project http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/
Chair, Text Encoding Initiative http://www.tei-c.org/

Department of English
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Vox +1 403 329-2377
Fax +1 403 382-7191
Email: [log in to unmask]
WWW: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/