Print

Print


Still, whatever your definition of witness, scribe,  editor or 
translator may be - there are cases I would want to present the 
translation of a particular word or passage right next to the variant 
readings and critical annotations in the same apparatus. E.g. if the 
translation (ancient or modern) priviliges an unique variant reading of 
some isolated manuscript or if the translation is emending a passage 
that is assumed to be corrupted.

Franz

Am 06.11.2013 20:55, schrieb Robert Whalen:
> I think I'll stick with my present plan: separate divs or lgs for the 
> translations, with @corresp tying them to the edited originals. Lou's 
> comment indicates precisely what I was thinking, and I can imagine 
> reasons for challenging the semantic difference in status between 
> early and later translations. But I cannot imagine a printed edition 
> in which the apparatus treats a translation as a witness (except, 
> perhaps, in cases where a translation bears traces of some lost 
> witness in the original language).
>
> I think I was momentarily hypnotized by the organizational beauty and 
> symmetry of the parallel segmentation apparatus, seeing a translation, 
> even a new one, as a "state of the text"--which, in some sense, it 
> surely is. But not, as Marjorie points out, in a strictly philological 
> sense.
>
> Rob