I think the (a) is just a note reference.

I posted a question similar to Marjorie's way back, feeling the need for a dedicated element for conjectures. I remember that the answer was that a conjecture also reflected a text – a text in the editor’s mind – and that <rdg> therefore could be used. I wasn’t really happy with this, since a reading has a material basis and does not need any justification, whereas a conjecture always should have grounds. The way I read it, Marjorie wants to state that the Vulgate parallel served as the ground for the editor’s emendation of  "m.” to “meo”, the principle behind this being that “meo” had the same grammatical role as “uestro”. If we accept that an emendation is a reading, perhaps using <note> with an attribute under <rdg> will suffice? I doubt whether the principles behind emendations can be reduced to a simple taxonomy that fits into an attribute on <rdg>, but some sort of structured approach stating both the textual basis and the principles appealed to might be possible.


On 3 May 2015 at 17:49:14, Hugh Cayless ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

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:  
> Text:  
> Nolite timere, pusillus grex, complacuit patri meo(a) dare uobis regnum.  
> Apparatus:  
> (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?  
> Cheers,  
> Marjorie