Print

Print


That makes sense. I was thinking along different lines: would it be 
completely hideous to do (possibly in addition, depending on what you 
want to *do* with the markup) something like <w>s<w>he</w></w> ?

G

James Cummings a écrit :

> This is exactly what I was going to argue.  I think it fits in best with 
> Wendell's division of simple vs complex notation.  The string 's/he' in 
> the english language is not a word.  Nor do I believe it is truly 
> offering me a choice between substituting she or he at this point.  
> Whenever anyone reads this aloud they'll say something like 'she he' or 
> 'he she' or 'he or she' rather than simply substituting a random choice 
> of one or the other.
> 
> In my mind at a very basic level this is:
>  <choice>
>    <abbr>s/he</abbr>
>    <expan>she or he</expan>
>  </choice>
> 
> Or maybe something like:
> <choice>
>   <abbr>s<am>/</am>he</abbr>
>   <expan>s<ex>he or </ex>he</expan>
> </choice>
> 
> I much prefer this to orig/reg.  What form of regularisation is it to 
> take something with less letters and funny characters and expand this 
> into plain normal english words with spaces between them?  Sounds to me 
> like abbr/expan.
> 
> -James

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Epigrapher & Digital Classicist)

Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/