Print

Print


Dear Stefanie,

concerning your example, I would agree with Roberto. <unclear> indicates 
that the editor can not transcribe the text with certainty. But in your 
case you seem to be quite sure about what has been written. I suppose 
that it might be worth to throw a look at <retrace>, too.

Best,
Philipp


Am 2018-03-20 08:34, schrieb Roberto Rosselli Del Turco:
> Hello Stefanie,
> if the copyist has corrected one word into another by modifying one or
> more letters you may consider using <subst> and <del> + <add> inside
> it:
> 
> http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-subst.html
> 
> If everything is perfectly readable <unclear> doesn't seem to be
> appropriate in this context.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> R
> 
> Il 20/03/2018 08:24, Stefanie Ertz ha scritto:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> thank you so much for your commitment. After so many advice, I think 
>> that <unclear will do best, for it is neither my emendation, or a need 
>> for supplying, nor do I find it necessary or expedient to indicate 
>> other
>> 
>> optically possible, but nonsensical readings.
>> 
>> The word in question is “faisant”, most probably, having been 
>> corrected by the writer (copyist) himself who seemingly had first 
>> intended to write “faisoient”, because “under” the corrected version 
>> it reads “faisoiet”.
>> 
>> He, then, corrected this already erroneous version in conformity with 
>> the rest of the following relative constructions, where there is 
>> always the present participle.
>> 
>> I normally exclude these kinds of (merely orthographic) 
>> auto-corrections from documentation; for this text is a copy, and, not 
>> least,
>> 
>> our transcriptions will be linked with scans of the original 
>> manuscripts.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Stefanie
>> 
>> *Von:*TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list 
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *Im Auftrag von *Elisa 
>> Beshero-Bondar
>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 20. März 2018 05:19
>> *An:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Betreff:*
>> 
>> Stefanie— I’m wondering what you think of <supplied> for the purposes 
>> of capturing the conjectural nature of the reading? Setting @resp on 
>> <supplied> can further indicate the source of the interpretation.
>> 
>> I’ll second James here in requesting some context!
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Elisa
>> 
>> -- Elisa Beshero-Bondar, PhD
>> Director, Center for the Digital Text | Associate Professor of English
>> University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg | Humanities Division
>> 150 Finoli Drive
>> Greensburg, PA  15601  USA
>> E-mail: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> Development site: http://newtfire.org
>> 
>>     On Mar 19, 2018, at 10:33 PM, James Cummings
>>     <[log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>     Hi Stefanie,
>> 
>>     Would you be able to give us a couple of examples to ensure we
>>     understand? You don't need to embed tags like <corr> inside 
>> <choice>
>>     if you don't want to. And it may be that just marking a segment of
>>     text and categorising it is more like what you want to do in this
>>     case, but I might be misunderstanding so examples would help.
>> 
>>     Best wishes,
>> 
>>     James
>> 
>>     --
>> 
>>     Dr James Cummings,[log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> 
>>     School of English Literature, Language, and Linguistics, Newcastle
>>     University
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>     
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>>     *From:*TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list
>>     <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on
>>     behalf of Stefanie Ertz <[log in to unmask]
>>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>     *Sent:*19 March 2018 14:38
>>     *To:*[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>     *Subject:*
>> 
>>     Dear all,
>> 
>>     maybe someone can help me with the following problem: Is there any
>>     possibilty provided by the TEI Guidelines to mark some text 
>> element
>>     as conjectured other than by using the <choice>, resp. <corr> 
>> option?
>> 
>>     There are, in the manuscripts I am actually working on, some
>>     discongruences between the “graphological” and the orthographic
>>     level, in which cases I would like to abstain from indicating any
>>     alternative reading while at the same time
>> 
>>     Indicating that in this place, the reading has, although ‘morally
>>     certain’, some conjectural aspect.
>> 
>>     Thanks in advance for your support,
>> 
>>     Best regards,
>> 
>>     Stefanie Ertz
>> 
>>     Dr. Stefanie Ertz
>> 
>>     Universität Paderborn
>> 
>>     Center for the History of Women Philosophers & Scientists
>> 
>>     Warburger Straße 100
>> 
>>     33098 Paderborn
>> 
>>     Email:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> 
>>     Website:https://historyofwomenphilosophers.org/
>> 

-- 
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Institut für Sprach- und 
Literaturwissenschaft
Dolivostraße 15, 64293 Darmstadt
Tel.: 06151/1657405
[log in to unmask]