Dear Marjorie,

I'd approve a slightly different encoding:

<lem type="conjecture" resp="#editor">meo</lem>
<rdg wit="#P #V #H #E"><abbr>m<am>.</am></abbr></rdg>

I'd separate the responsible person from the fact that it's a conjecture, i.e. by using the more general value "conjecture" instead of "conieci" and  by adding a resp attribute (@source is not allowed on rdg or lem if I'm not mistaken). This way you can also encode conjectures from previous editors or other scholars using the same typology.

The following apparatus note for example:

meo Sommervogel / meo coniecit Sommervogel

could be encoded accordingly:

 <lem type="conjecture" resp="#Sommervogel">meo</lem>
 <rdg wit="#P #V #H #E"><abbr>m<am>.</am></abbr></rdg>

In both cases you capture the intellectual content (as Hugh says) but you loose the original expression and typography (here: Italics and the expression conieci/coniecit/scripsi/scripsit and the like).

As regards the function of the reference to the Vulgate version, this is hard to determine. If necessary I'd prefer something more simple  like the following:

<lem type="conjecture" resp="#editor" corresp="#vulg-1">meo</lem>
<rdg wit="#P #V #H #E"><abbr>m<am>.</am></abbr></rdg>
<rdg wit="#vulgate" xml:id="vulg-1">vestro</rdg>

The vulgate rdg could also have @type="source" (or in other cases @type="parallel" or similar) to indicate the different status of the variant reading.
But this seems very much a matter of taste, perspective and interpretation.


Am 06.05.2015 um 04:40 schrieb Burghart Marjorie:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Dear Franz, 
I agree that there is not much room for debate here about the possible expansion of "m" and the editor is probably over-cautious, but let's say I'm interested in the general best practice to encode such phenomena. 

I rather like the idea of using @type="conieci" on the <lem/>, actually. Would you approve of something like: 

         <lem type="conieci" source="Vulgate">meo</lem>
         <rdg wit="#P #V #H #E"><abbr>m</abbr></rdg>

It still fails to capture the text of the Vulgate, so maybe I could still use the <certainty/> element as in my first shot: 

         <lem type="conieci" source="Vulgate">meo
         <certainty cert="high" locus="value">
              <desc>uestro <title>Vulg.</title></desc>
         <rdg wit="#P #V #H #E"><abbr>m</abbr></rdg>

I like it better than adding the Vulgate as a pseudo-witness of the edition. 

Thoughts? :) 


----- Mail original -----
De: "Franz Fischer" <[log in to unmask]>
À: "Burghart Marjorie" <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
Envoyé: Lundi 4 Mai 2015 09:13:38
Objet: Re: Encoding conjecture in critical apparatus

Actually, I would not consider this a conjecture even if the editor 
explicitly says so. It's just the expansion of an abbreviation - and 
what else could 'm.' stand for in this context?
For this reason I'd be in favour of Hugh's first suggestion to simply 
use <note> for 'conieci'.

However, if we want to encode the editor's interpretation of his/her 
intervention there is @type, @resp, @source and @wit:
@wit, @source or @resp alone (i.e. without @type) does not necessarily 
mean this is a conjecture or emendation. The editor's reading could be 
based on an unknown or unnamed witness.

The attribute class att.editLike provides @evidence with 'conjecture' as 
suggested value. But this seems to refer to interventions of the encoder 
only and is not allowed on <rdg> or <lem>.
Otherwise, the suggested value 'external' could also indicate external 
evidence, in this case the Vulgate version. But again, I don't think 
this is the case here. It's just the reference to a variant reading in a 
source text.


Am 04.05.2015 um 01:53 schrieb Burghart Marjorie:
Good question, actually I have no idea what is the intended purpose of @source. This element is never mentioned in any example, and the relevant chapter of the Guidelines is silent on its purpose. The only piece of information I was able to find is that "att.source provides attributes for pointing to the source of a bibliographic reference", so in this case it could point to the Vulgate, but it would not be precise enough for the purpose. It would also fail to represent conjecture based on a mere gut feeling of the editor.
Have any people here ever used the @source element on <lem>? I'd be curious to hear how and why.

It is also worth mentioning that in the case of a "negative" apparatus, <lem> does not normally have an @wit, since all witnesses not mentioned in the @wit of a <rdg> are supposed to bear the  text of the <lem>.

----- Mail original -----
De: "Hugh Cayless" <[log in to unmask]>
À: "Burghart Marjorie" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Envoyé: Lundi 4 Mai 2015 01:30:18
Objet: Re: Encoding conjecture in critical apparatus

Doesn't @source on lem meant it's a conjecture? It must be if there's no witness, no?

Sent from my phone.

On May 3, 2015, at 14:54, Burghart Marjorie <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thank you all for your contribution!
Yes indeed, the (a) was just to mark a footnote, sorry it was confusing.

@Hugh, the solution you offer lets us print or display "conieci", but not represent the fact that there is a conjecture here, and also the factual link between the reading in the Vulgate and the editor's hypothesis is less evident.
What about using the certainty element? Something like:

        <lem>meo<certainty cert="high" locus="value"><desc>uestro <title>Vulg.</title></desc></certainty></lem>
        <rdg wit="#P #V #H #E"><abbr>m</abbr></rdg>

What I like about the above is also that it would let us print or display the apparatus according to the age-old conventions of critical editions - something I am very attentive to maintain, even in born-digital editions.

Any thoughts? It would be good to reach a community's agreement on the way to encode such very frequent phenomena in critical editions.

Best wishes,

----- Mail original -----
De: "Hugh Cayless" <[log in to unmask]>
À: [log in to unmask]
Envoyé: Dimanche 3 Mai 2015 20:07:25
Objet: Re: Encoding conjecture in critical apparatus

Ah, that worries me much less then :-). Sorry for the confusion.

Nolite timere, pusillus grex, complacuit patri <app><lem source="#ed">meo</lem><note>conieci</note><rdg wit="#codd"><abbr>m<am>.</am></abbr></rdg><rdg wit="#Vulg">vestro</rdg></app> dare uobis regnum.

@source="#ed" indicates that the lemma is the editor’s own conjecture, #ed being a pointer to a bibl in sourceDesc, probably, since you’re encoding the edition.

I’ll add that if you’re wanting to encode the form of the apparatus as printed in the text, then you probably want to do the apparatus as <notes> rather than (or in addition to) using <app>.

On May 3, 2015, at 13:48 , Lou Burnard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I think the (a) is a footnote indicator and nothing to do with the text.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab®|PRO

-------- Original message --------
From: Hugh Cayless
Date:05/03/2015 16:48 (GMT+00:00)
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Encoding conjecture in critical apparatus

I’m rather puzzled by this. Is meo(a) meant to convey that "mea" is a possible expansion of "m."? I don’t think that works at all in Latin, since "patri" is masculine, but I don’t see (without more context) how else to read it.

I’d probably do something like:

Nolite timere, pusillus grex, complacuit patri <app><lem source="#ed"><choice><seg cert="high">meo</seg><seg cert="low">mea</seg></choice></lem><rdg wit="#codd"><abbr>m<am>.</am></abbr></rdg><rdg wit="#Vulg">vestro</rdg></app> dare uobis regnum.

Perhaps "meo(a)" means something like "The only possible expansions of "m." are "meo" and "mea". I give the latter for completeness’ sake, but parenthesize it because it is impossible." In which case, I might do it differently. I might also restrict the <choice> only to o(a), depending on my encoding policy, so <lem>me<choice><seg cert="high>o</seg><seg cert="low">a</seg></choice></lem> or something like that.

Hope this helps…


On May 2, 2015, at 18:17 , Burghart Marjorie <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear all,
I would like to encode an existing critical edition, where this is found:

Nolite timere, pusillus grex, complacuit patri meo(a) dare uobis regnum.

(a) meo] conieci, m. codd., uestro Vulg.

Some explanations: this means that the wor "meo" in the sentence is a conjecture of the editor ("conieci").
All the manuscripts bear the same abbreviated reading, "m." ("m. codd.").
But this sentence is actually a biblical quotation, and in the Latun Bible, the Vulgate, the reading here is "uestro" ("uestro Vulg."). This is why the editor thinks "m."stands for "meo", i.e. also a pronoum but for a different person, which makes perfect sense.

How would you guys encode this?