Unattested Words, Names, etc.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Unattested Words, Names, etc.

Scott Vanderbilt (TEI-L)
Most readers will be familiar with practice of prepending instances of
unattested names and words with an asterisk (*), e.g.

     Meyer-Lübke deduces *caraculum (a small stake or pole) and
     *car(r)icare (to load), *carricum (a load), from Romance
derivatives ...

or

     The attested names Butto and Neutto are therefore not possible, but
     for *Sutto compare Satto, Suttonius and Suttius.

How might this qualification best be represented in mark-up?

I'm not convinced by suggestions in a previous related thread to use
@rend or @rendition, and I'm not sufficiently imaginative to see any way
to use `certainty` that makes sense.

Many thanks.

- Scott
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unattested Words, Names, etc.

Paul Schaffner
I suppose it depends on how, and in what context, you are marking
up the words themselves. If you were using <w> for example, you
could say <w type="unattested"> or <w type="reconstructed"); but
that option is not open to you if you're tagging the word
as <mentioned> or even simply as <hi>.

I'm afraid that we simply prepend a literal "*". That solution doesn't
answer the question as asked, but is there reason to avoid it?

pfs
--


On Sat, Oct 3, 2020, at 13:55, Scott Vanderbilt (TEI-L) wrote:

> Most readers will be familiar with practice of prepending instances of
> unattested names and words with an asterisk (*), e.g.
>
>      Meyer-Lübke deduces *caraculum (a small stake or pole) and
>      *car(r)icare (to load), *carricum (a load), from Romance
> derivatives ...
>
> or
>
>      The attested names Butto and Neutto are therefore not possible, but
>      for *Sutto compare Satto, Suttonius and Suttius.
>
> How might this qualification best be represented in mark-up?
>
> I'm not convinced by suggestions in a previous related thread to use
> @rend or @rendition, and I'm not sufficiently imaginative to see any way
> to use `certainty` that makes sense.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> - Scott
>

--
Paul Schaffner [hidden email] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs
 Editor, Middle English Dictionary and Compendium
 Manager, Text Creation Unit and Text Creation Partnership
Digital Content & Collections | University of Michigan Libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Unattested Words, Names, etc.

Christian Thomas (HU Berlin)
Hi all, maybe off the mark, since I am not familiar with this practice which seems to have some sort of lexicographic function and may best be represented with a tag from that repertoire:

how about e.g. "<metamark>*</metamark>caraculum"? To make it more concrete, use an additional @type in <metamark> for the "*", plus use e.g. <term> for "caraculum", and some specific <note> @type for "(a small stake or pole)" in the first example you gave (and tag the others accordingly)?

Best wishes, Christian


--
Christian Thomas
[hidden email]

Von unterwegs gesendet. Eventuelle Tippfehler und die Kürze dieser Nachricht bitte ich daher zu entschuldigen.

Am 03.10.2020 20:13 schrieb Paul Schaffner <[hidden email]>:

I suppose it depends on how, and in what context, you are marking
up the words themselves. If you were using <w> for example, you
could say <w type="unattested"> or <w type="reconstructed"); but
that option is not open to you if you're tagging the word
as <mentioned> or even simply as <hi>.

I'm afraid that we simply prepend a literal "*". That solution doesn't
answer the question as asked, but is there reason to avoid it?

pfs
--


On Sat, Oct 3, 2020, at 13:55, Scott Vanderbilt (TEI-L) wrote:
> Most readers will be familiar with practice of prepending instances of
> unattested names and words with an asterisk (*), e.g.
>
>      Meyer-Lübke deduces *caraculum (a small stake or pole) and
>      *car(r)icare (to load), *carricum (a load), from Romance
> derivatives ...
>
> or
>
>      The attested names Butto and Neutto are therefore not possible, but
>      for *Sutto compare Satto, Suttonius and Suttius.
>
> How might this qualification best be represented in mark-up?
>
> I'm not convinced by suggestions in a previous related thread to use
> @rend or @rendition, and I'm not sufficiently imaginative to see any way
> to use `certainty` that makes sense.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> - Scott
>

--
Paul Schaffner [hidden email] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs
Editor, Middle English Dictionary and Compendium
Manager, Text Creation Unit and Text Creation Partnership
Digital Content & Collections | University of Michigan Libraries