Print

Print


Unless I’m misunderstanding Peter’s objection, this doesn’t really avoid the problem, which is one of perspective. From the perspective of A, B lacks something; from the perspective of B, A has something it doesn’t. If you were picking one as your base text or establishing a base text and favoring one reading over the other, then it would be obvious how to treat A and B, but if you’re attempting simply to record the variation then you wouldn’t want to adopt the perspective of either text. 

That said, the original question was about how this would normally be represented in a *printed* version, and those do typically have a base text and therefore a particular perspective. 

Hugh


> On Nov 30, 2015, at 8:18 , Franz Fischer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> To avoid the semantics of
> om. / omisit /omiserunt
> you can use
> non hab. / habet / habent
> 
> or instead of
> add./ addidit / addiderunt
> you can use
> hab. / habet / habent
> 
> In the case of punctuation I'd suggest to use the name of the mark instead of the mark itself,
> 
> i.e., instead of
> , non hab.
> to use
> virgulam non hab.
> or
> non interp. / interpunxit / interpunxerunt
> 
> The position of the (missing or additional) punctuation mark should be explicitly indicated:
> 
> either
> 1 virgualm non hab. inter x and y (witness-sigl)
> or
> x] post x non habet virgulam (witness-sigl)
> or
> y] ante y non hab. virgulam (witness-sigl)
> or even
> x, y] x y (witness-sigl)
> 
> Of course this is all old school convention and depending on your audience I'd suggest to just describe the phenomenon in the appropriate modern language explicitly.
> 
> Best, Franz
> 
> 
> Am 30.11.2015 um 14:15 schrieb Robinson, Peter:
>> It is simply that if you have source a as
>> cat
>> and source b as
>> cat,
>> You would see the comma as ‘added’ in source b relative to source a; as ‘omitted ’in source a relative to source b. The problem is having two ways of saying the same thing — and not wishing to imply any sense of priority as to what is relative to what. There might be many reasons for not wanting to imply that either a or b should be seen as more ‘original’, of which supposed affiliation to ‘traditional’ or ‘new philological’ ideas may or may not be a part. I suppose too that I dislike the supposed opposition of ‘traditional’ and ‘new’.
>> 
>> peter
>> 
>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 4:56 AM, Marjorie Burghart <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Sorry if I misunderstood your comment. Could you then elaborate on what you mean by the following? That would surely be helpful.
>>> 
>>>>> As others have observed: the use of ‘omitted’ is problematic; one might as
>>>>> readily flip the comparison to say “added”.
>>> 
>>> Marjorie
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Peter Robinson" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> À: "Marjorie Burghart" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Cc: [log in to unmask]
>>> Envoyé: Lundi 30 Novembre 2015 11:49:57
>>> Objet: Re: Appearance of <app> with empty <lem> or <rdg> -- "New Philology"?
>>> 
>>> I don’t think this is anything to do with “new philology” or “traditional philology” or any other label. Nor indeed, with making ‘decisions’ or not making them — making decisions is part of the business of engaging with texts, manuscripts, works, editing. This labelling is simplistic and unhelpful.
>>> 
>>> It would be nice to keep the rhetoric out of this discussion.
>>> 
>>> Peter
>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 12:42 AM, Marjorie Burghart <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> From: "Peter Robinson" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> As others have observed: the use of ‘omitted’ is problematic; one might as
>>>>> readily flip the comparison to say “added”.
>>>> I would not say it is problematic at all. It simply is a different school of textual criticism.
>>>> If you are into "New Philology", then you will not want to make a decision regarding what's been added or omitted.
>>>> If you are a traditional philologist, making this decision is part of your job as an editor.
>>>> Since Chris, in his example, uses <lem/>, it seems to me that he places himself in the traditional philology current, and therefore making decisions is necessary.
>>>> 
>>>> It seems to me that there is a strong temptation of "New Philology" in digital editions. I have often heard that it was "better" not to use <lem/> in the apparatus. It is a perfectly valid position if you're teaching "New Philology", but should be placed in the context of the different theories of editing, and never be presented as matter-of-fact.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Marjorie