Print

Print


Thank you Lou for this clear explanation.


I am still missing a couple of things though (sorry):


-is it recommended that <ex> should always be nested inside <expan>? (If so, this might be stated more explicitly in the Guidelines?)

-if it is optional to nest <ex> inside <expan>, what are the specific benefits one might realise from `<expan>ev<ex>er</ex>y</expan>` as opposed to `ev<ex>er</ex>y`?


I suppose the answer will depend on the project to some extent, but say for argument that it is a scholarly edition where it is sufficient to note the presence of an abbreviation that has been expanded, not the form of the original abbreviation.


Matthew


________________________________
From: Lou Burnard <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 19 July 2017 18:06
To: MLH; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: to <expan> or not to <expan>

<expan> should contain the whole of a word that has been expanded. <expan>Mister</expan> when the source says "Mr."

<ex> should contain the bits of an expansion which are not present in the source text but have been added to it by an editor.
M<ex>iste</ex>r.

The truly obsessive will also wish to mark (using <am>) the full stop which signals that "Mr." is an abbreviation of course.

<expan>M<ex>iste</ex>r</expan><am>.</am>

Of course, it might be that (this is for Bertrand) you think "Mr." is actually an abbreviation for "Monseigneur", in which case you'd have

<expan>M<ex>onseigneu</ex>r</expan><am>.</am>

Or, if unable to decide, a <choice> containing both, and maybe also an <abbr> holding the original form just for fun. Though in that case, where to put the <am> becomes a bit trickier.




On 19/07/17 17:42, MLH wrote:
Could anyone explain the rationale for combining <ex> and <expan> in this way? (for someone not as familiar with the transcription module as he probably should be!)
Thanks,
Matthew