LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for TEI-L Archives


TEI-L Archives

TEI-L Archives


TEI-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEI-L Home

TEI-L Home

TEI-L  March 2007

TEI-L March 2007

Subject:

Re: Expansion of abbreviations: proposals

From:

Gabriel BODARD <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Gabriel BODARD <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:24:28 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (149 lines)

I understand your reservations, Tim, being, as you know, trained in the
same school as you on papyrological matters. However, it bothers me much
less than it seems to do you to represent Leiden square brackets by

supplied[@reason='lost']

and other types of restoration (abbreviation, erroneous omission, etc.) by

supplied[@reason='omitted']
supplied[@reason='abbreviation']

etc.

The invention of a new element to fill any of these functions would be,
for me, semantic sugar for the above. Fine, of course, if you prefer
that, but not especially necessary.

Cheers,

Gabby

Tim Finney a écrit :
> I'm happy with everything except point 3, my reservation being due to my
> understanding of the Leiden conventions used by papyrologists. Of
> course, the TEI should not be constrained by what one specialist group
> does. Nevertheless, here is an attempt to explain my unease.
> 
> The relevant parts of the Leiden conventions may be summarised thus
> (from "Note on the Method of Publication and Abbreviations" in recent
> vols of the _Oxyrhynchus Papyri_); my suggestions for TEI conversions
> are given as well:
> 
> a\.b\.c\.  (\. means dot under the preceding letter.)
> <unclear cert="doubtful">abc</unclear>
> The letters are doubtful. 
> 
> ...
> <unclear cert="unread">...</unclear>
> Approx. three letters remain unread by the editor. 
> 
> [abc]
> <supplied>abc</supplied>
> The letters are lost, but restored from a parallel or by conjecture.
> 
> [...]
> <gap reason="lost" extent="3"/>
> Approx. three letters are lost.
> 
> ( )
> <choice><abbr type="nomen sacrum">ΘΣ</abbr><expan>ΘΕΟΣ</expan></choice>
> Round brackets indicate the resolution of an abbreviation or a symbol.
> 
> The problem arises as follows. As a papyrology novice I was commanded to
> only use square brackets for something that is really lost. I remember
> being told, "Even if the slightest trace of a letter remains, it belongs
> outside square brackets." An unreadable trace is what the bare dots
> "..." are for--letters unread by the editor. (Note: these bare dots
> appear outside square brackets. E.g. time fl... li\.ke an arro[w].)
> 
> It seems to me that "doubtful" text and "letters unread" should both be
> converted to TEI in the same way: using the <unclear> element with a
> type attribute indicating what variety of unclear. This is because in my
> mind the difference between the two categories is one of degree:
> "doubtful" for any letter of which a trace remains that the editor
> thinks is a good bet, and "unread" for such a letter that due to the
> extent of damage could be anything. The trace may be insubstantial.
> Nevertheless, if there is a trace, the transcription should indicate the
> fact.
> 
> By analogy with the papyrological injunction against using square
> brackets for anything but lost text, I reserve <supplied> exclusively
> for letters that are lost. This goes against the TEI definition, which
> allows <supplied> to be used for letters that are damaged as well as for
> those that are lost. I wish that the TEI definition of supplied would
> drop the "due to damage" part and only allow supplied to be used for
> text that is well and truly lost, with not the slightest bit remaining.
> 
> So the cause of my unease is a dogged determination to reserve
> <supplied> for text that really is lost. This is also the reason for my
> distaste of <supplied> or <supp> to expand abbreviations.
> 
> Best
> 
> Tim Finney
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 13:45 +0000, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> I promised I would summarize the consensus on this issue, and to some 
>> extent my "strawman" proposal of 21 feb was meant to do that. For 
>> avoidance of doubt, however, here's what I am now proposing to implement 
>> in P5 with regard to this issue:
>>
>> 1. Make explicit that <expan> should contain the full expanded form of 
>> an abbreviation, not just a part of it.
>>
>> 2. Explicitly licence the Bodard Practice (this is the use of <abbr> 
>> within <expan> to mark the part/s abbreviated)
>>
>> 3. Make explicit that <supplied> can be used to supply three kinds of 
>> editorial addition
>>  (a) letters that are legitimately missing from the original e.g. within 
>> an expansion
>>  (b) letters that are accidentally missing from the original e.g. by 
>> scribal error
>>  (c) letters that are missing from the original because of damage or 
>> other non scribal reason
>>
>> I have invented the term "legitimately" to describe the first case: I 
>> hope it is clear what I mean -- if you could point the omission out to 
>> the scribe he would look  at you a bit funny like and say "quid?". 
>> Whereas in the second case, he would probably say "Doh!" and slap his 
>> pate. Certainly there does seem to be a general agreement that the above 
>> three cases should be distinguished. There is less consensus on whether 
>> the distinction should be made by a type attribute or a distinct 
>> element, and if the latter what it should be called (the names <e> and 
>> <supp> were both proposed, but neither got much support, even from their 
>> proposers).
>>
>> I toyed with, and have not yet definitively abandoned, the notion of a 
>> generic "editorial intervention" element <ed> which could be used to 
>> delimit *anything*  not present in the original source but supplied by 
>> an editor, without further precision as to whether it is the result of a 
>> correction, an expansion, a regularization or whatever. This would 
>> parallel the use of <hi> as a generic marker for "stuff that looks 
>> different but I haven't time or energy to explain why". And you could 
>> use it instead of <supplied type="a"> .
>>
>> I quite like this idea myself, probably on account of being incorrigibly 
>> lazy. I am not sure though whether it's a good idea to encourage this in 
>> others.
>>

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD

Inscriptions of Aphrodisias
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
Kay House
7, Arundel Street
London WC2R 3DX
<http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=WC2R3DX>

Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)20 78 48 13 88
Fax: +44 (0)20 78 48 29 80

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991
April 1991
March 1991
February 1991
January 1991
December 1990
November 1990
October 1990
September 1990
August 1990
July 1990
June 1990
April 1990
March 1990
February 1990
January 1990

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager
https://listserv.brown.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0703&amp;L=TEI-L&amp;P=43419
listserv.brown.edu
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-26
69660
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:ADUKHLR5AYHQ6JTX6LEEOECICYVMGXQJ
<urn:uuid:18b937d3-828b-46e0-a058-b8b610754e14>
2019-06-20T15:54:14Z
128.148.252.33
text/html
sha1:DGDHJYULRHJQUFM7Z2OPBWRGMQ2OLSDF
<urn:uuid:d6547c4a-b65c-479c-9bda-683f4b3bac23>
https://listserv.brown.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0703&amp;L=TEI-L&amp;P=43419
response
<urn:uuid:8da3bae9-7aa8-49f7-9e31-ccab3fb25aee>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-26
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for June 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-13-190-31.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/