(no subject)

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

(no subject)

Stefanie Ertz

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: [hidden email]

Website: https://historyofwomenphilosophers.org/

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

(no subject)

James Cummings-5


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, [hidden email]

School of English Literature, Language, and Linguistics, Newcastle University




From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list <[hidden email]> on behalf of Stefanie Ertz <[hidden email]>
Sent: 19 March 2018 14:38
To: [hidden email]
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: [hidden email]

Website: https://historyofwomenphilosophers.org/

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

(no subject)

Elisa Beshero-Bondar-2

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:[hidden email]
Development site: http://newtfire.org






On Mar 19, 2018, at 10:33 PM, James Cummings <[hidden email]> 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, [hidden email]
School of English Literature, Language, and Linguistics, Newcastle University



From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list <[hidden email]> on behalf of Stefanie Ertz <[hidden email]>
Sent: 19 March 2018 14:38
To: [hidden email]
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

 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

AW:

Stefanie Ertz

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:[hidden email]] Im Auftrag von Elisa Beshero-Bondar
Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. März 2018 05:19
An: [hidden email]
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:[hidden email]
Development site: http://newtfire.org

 

 

 

 

 

On Mar 19, 2018, at 10:33 PM, James Cummings <[hidden email]> 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, [hidden email]

School of English Literature, Language, and Linguistics, Newcastle University




From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list <[hidden email]> on behalf of Stefanie Ertz <[hidden email]>
Sent: 19 March 2018 14:38
To: [hidden email]
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: [hidden email]

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AW:

Roberto Rosselli Del Turco-2
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:[hidden email]] *Im Auftrag von *Elisa Beshero-Bondar
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 20. März 2018 05:19
> *An:* [hidden email]
> *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: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> Development site: http://newtfire.org
>
>     On Mar 19, 2018, at 10:33 PM, James Cummings
>     <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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,[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>     School of English Literature, Language, and Linguistics, Newcastle
>     University
>
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     *From:*TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> on
>     behalf of Stefanie Ertz <[hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>     *Sent:*19 March 2018 14:38
>     *To:*[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     *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:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>     Website:https://historyofwomenphilosophers.org/
>


--

Roberto Rosselli Del Turco   roberto.rossellidelturco at unito.it
Dip. di Studi Umanistici     roberto.rossellidelturco at fileli.unipi.it
Universita' di Torino        VBD: http://vbd.humnet.unipi.it/beta2/
EVT: http://bit.ly/24D9kdE   VC: http://www.visionarycross.org/

  Hige sceal the heardra,     heorte the cenre,
  mod sceal the mare,       the ure maegen litlath.  (Maldon 312-3)

<shamelessPlug>Holidays in Tuscany http://www.imoricci.it/</shamelessPlug>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AW:

Philipp Vanscheidt-2
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:[hidden email]] *Im Auftrag von *Elisa
>> Beshero-Bondar
>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 20. März 2018 05:19
>> *An:* [hidden email]
>> *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: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> Development site: http://newtfire.org
>>
>>     On Mar 19, 2018, at 10:33 PM, James Cummings
>>     <[hidden email]
>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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,[hidden email]
>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>>     School of English Literature, Language, and Linguistics, Newcastle
>>     University
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     *From:*TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list
>>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> on
>>     behalf of Stefanie Ertz <[hidden email]
>>     <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>>     *Sent:*19 March 2018 14:38
>>     *To:*[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>     *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:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>>     Website:https://historyofwomenphilosophers.org/
>>

--
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Institut für Sprach- und
Literaturwissenschaft
Dolivostraße 15, 64293 Darmstadt
Tel.: 06151/1657405
[hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Encoding conjectures (was: )

Martin Sievers
Am 20.03.2018 um 08:48 schrieb Philipp Vanscheidt:
> Dear Stefanie,
> [...]

Dear all,

could the discussions please be continued under a useful subject, e.g.
using the duplicate thread.

Thank you.

Best wishes
Martin
 --

Diplom-Mathematiker Martin Sievers

Universität Trier
Kompetenzzentrum für elektronische Erschließungs- und
Publikationsverfahren in den Geisteswissenschaften /
Trier Center for Digital Humanities
54286 Trier

Besucheranschrift:
Universität Trier
Universitätsring 15
DM-Gebäude
54296 Trier

Aktuelle Projekte: Wörterbuch des Altuigurischen / MUYA /
XML-Druckaufbereitung / Einsatz von TeX

Raum: DM333 (3.OG B)

Telefon:  0651 201-3017
Telefax:  0651 201-3589
Skype:    martinsievers
E-Mail:   [hidden email]
Internet:
http://kompetenzzentrum.uni-trier.de/de/ueber-uns/mitarbeiter/martin-sievers/