#357 Guidelines, p. 388 - "<wit>[unattested]</wit>"

GREEN
closed-fixed
1(low)
2013-06-18
2012-03-05
No

"<lem>Eriment<wit>[unattested]</wit>"

Comment: <wit> is only introduced two pages later, but while this is perhaps OK, having "[unattested]" as its contents goes against the very clear instructions about what this element is to be used for. To quote just one passage: "The <wit> list … should be used only to transcribe the witness information in the form found in the source" (390). Square brackets and other ad hoc markup aside, "unattested" probably does not occur anywhere: here it is used to indicate a conjectural form - one could also contest whether such a form is a reading and belongs in <rdg> (or <lem>). I don't think TEI has an elegant way of noting conjectural forms, unless they occur in an apparatus one is transcribing. Is this the way TEI recommends that one should mark up one's own conjectures?

Discussion

    • summary: 388 --> Guidelines, p. 388 - "<wit>[unattested]</wit>"
     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2012-03-13

    • milestone: --> 871214
     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2012-03-13

    I agree that this example seems wrong, not only because of the unlicensed use of special notation but more seriously because the existence of the hypothetical reading is not relevant to the point which this set of examples is discussing, namely the use of the reading group element. I suspect that expert advice may be needed on how to improve it however (if we can get Peter Robinson's attention again...)

     
  • James Cummings
    James Cummings
    2012-04-15

    Why wouldn't one want to use <witness> for conjectural witnesses? i.e. MsA was copied as MsB and MsC was copied from that, but MsB isn't extant. We assume the existence of MsB by the textual variations that are evident in the extant witnesses, but what would be wrong with having a <witness> that isn't extant?

    -james

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2012-04-16

    Agreed to revise and expand example: firstly, use a straightforward witness; secondly add an example for the "unattested" case.

     
  • Lou Burnard
    Lou Burnard
    2012-04-16

    • assigned_to: nobody --> gabrielbodard
     
  • James: "what would be wrong with having a <witness> that isn't extant?"

    Perhaps it is just my positivist inclinations that lead me to believe that witnesses attest to something "real" (which can be transcribed and interpreted in different ways, of course), whereas a conjecture only attests to the ingenuity of the editor, who proposes a theory about a reading, a reading which may never have been actualised in any document.

    Anyway, I did not raise any point about <witness> (which describes witnesses), but about <wit> (which refers to witnesses). According to the Guidelines, "<wit> contains a list of one or more sigla of witnesses attesting a given reading, in a textual variation." and this does not fit the notation "[unattested]".

    More generally, I would like to see clearer advice in the Guidelines about how to encode conjectures within <app>. This both applies to any conjectures one might make oneself and conjectures made by others that one wishes to transcribe.

     
  • BODARD Gabriel
    BODARD Gabriel
    2012-07-31

    Jens makes a good point: the guidelines need to be clearer about this (cf. my last comment on ticket http://purl.org/tei/bug/3496958\).

    In EpiDoc (which almost never concerns itself with MS variants, but often attributes conjectures and records deprecated readings/conjectures), rdg is used with @resp to record a reading, interpretation or conjecture by a specific editor. I think we need to *EITHER*

    (a) give examples of and discuss this usage in the TEI guidelines, *OR*

    (b) consider inventing a new element <cnj> or similar to record conjectures in <app>. But is this now overlapping with the designs of the appcrit WG?

    Concretely, for this ticket, I propose to: (1) replace the example Jens objects to with a case involving a real witness, and (2) add a second example of an unattested witness (if someone can remind me how we agreed this should be done).

     
  • James Cummings
    James Cummings
    2012-09-19

    • milestone: 871214 --> GREEN
     
  • James Cummings
    James Cummings
    2012-09-19

    Council agress that Gaby's proposal a) below is what makes most sense for now.

    -James

     
  • BODARD Gabriel
    BODARD Gabriel
    2013-06-18

    This ticket has been assigned to me for some time, but I confess I'm not sure exactly how to fix it. Should the <rdg> in question just have an @resp instead of @wit? That seems the most straightforward solution.

    (Note that this example occurs three times in the prose as well as once in the elementspec. Should we change all 4 at the same time?)

     
  • BODARD Gabriel
    BODARD Gabriel
    2013-06-18

    After offline discussion with James, and looking back at my suggestion a bit further above, it looks like this is indeed the best solution. I have therefore changed the line:
    <lem>Eriment<wit>[unattested]</wit></lem>
    to
    <lem resp="#ed2013">Eriment</lem>
    in all four instances (at [r12274]).

     

    Related

    Commit: [r12274]


    Last edit: BODARD Gabriel 2013-06-24
  • BODARD Gabriel
    BODARD Gabriel
    2013-06-18

    • status: open --> closed-fixed
    • Priority: 5 --> 1(low)