Print

Print


I'm wondering if calling that most interesting case an obvious
substitution might be a bit of a stretch for some. After all, the
authorial intent might have been

* writes "Theorists and men of ..."
* Hmmm ... let's make that "Speculatists, theorists, and other men of
  business  ..."
* inserts "Speculatists"
* [before getting around to "," and lower-casing 'T'] Hmmm ... that
  sounds over-the-top, "Theorists" will have to do
* crosses out "Speculatists"

no?


> David and I here at Rotunda have some semi-diplomatic
> transcriptions in the Alexander Hamilton Papers that sometimes
> contain the following situation:
> 
> http://mf3vb.ei.virginia.edu/subst.jpg
> 
> As it is on the page, I would hesitate to interpret “Theorists” on the 
> baseline as a case of “restored” or “stet”, and it's certainly not a 
> case for <del>.
> 
> To my mind, this is a word substitution where explicit cancellation is 
> not marked; since the insertion “Speculatists” was cancelled, my guess 
> would be that the reason was a “mid-substitution” change of mind on the 
> author's part.
> 
> More generically, it is the case of text that has no distinctive 
> features other than the fact that it is clearly part of a substitution.
> 
> We considered two solutions for this:
> 
> (1) schema modification to allow mixed content inside <subst>
> (2) schema modification to allow <seg> inside <subst> (cf. David's 
> question datestamped 2011-01-07 under FR ticket #2859355)
> 
> FWIW, we decided on (2), thus:
> 
> <subst>
> <seg>Theorists</seg>
> <add>
> <del>Speculatists</del>
> </add>
> </subst>
> 
> If anyone has suggestions for a more elegant solution under P5, we
> would be grateful to hear about them (maybe under a separate
> thread?).