[tei-council] NH final but typos

[Dan O'Donnell]

On Sun, 2007-28-10 at 16:11 -0400, Syd Bauman wrote:
> > I carried out all council's wishes, 
> 
> Am I mis-remembering, or wasn't one of the major requests of Council
> to re-divide this chapter up by conformance level? 

Well the original proposal, before our last conference call was to do it
something like that: I'd originally proposed organising the whole
chapter that way. And in fact I did if you check it against the starting
version: it wasn't originally organised this way although the
organisation was incipient and IMO revealed after some deletions,
pruning, and reorganisations.

At the conference call you raised this point, and the decision in the
end as I understood the sense of council, was to explicitly discuss
conformance for each type. Which I've done.

> 
> > except replacing the Pinsky quotation with Lehrer: it turned out
> > the Pinsky quote was a better example for two things than the
> > Lehrer, so I left it in.
> 
> Can you explain what it was better for? As the Pinsky quote does not
> demonstrate <l> / <said> overlap (which is a great starting point),
> I'm not too fond of it.

Well it does, actually: it has a divided quote running over a line
boundary" "Yes"<lb/>she said "... rest of quote". You could argue that
the "Yes" is not part of the following sentence grammatically; but it is
clearly part of the same utterance. Because this is also a divided
quote, something I otherwise cut from the chapter, this killed two birds
with one stone.

And it was better than the Alma passage because it also demonstrated the
problems of @part (which Alma didn't do) and without modification as in
the original citation from WvBraun. So that was a third bird.

> 
> 
> > I also redid the example: New York Hit and Run with an example that
> 
> I like the new example better.
> 
> 
> > I also provided a syntax diagram to make the distinction between
> > the two interpretations clear.
> 
> I think that's excellent! It could have been demonstrated with just
>    fast (trains and planes)    vs    (fast trains) and planes
> but the diagram is better. However, if you have the chance to shore
> up the vertical spacing, readers will appreciate it. (The tree is
> just too tall. :-)
> 
> 
> > Finally, I substituted the Pinsky quotation for the "modified"
> > passage from Lehrer's Werner von Braun. The reasons were that
> > Pinsky could be used to show the feature without modification, the
> > Lehrer example was linguistically dodgy, IMO, and there were
> > validation problems with it.
> 
> I don't see what was "dodgy", but yes, it caused validation problems,
> as I pointed out last month. I think most people would say the schema
> needs to be fixed, but we obviously can't do that now!

The dodgy bit was that the modifications didn't really change anything:
they involved changing a final punctuation of some sort to a dash so
that a "sentence" crossed a line boundary, but linguistically we were
still looking at two sentences and the use of @part wasn't really
necessary: <s>...</s></l><s>...</s> would have been perfectly adequate
grammatically. While <s> does allow orthographic sentences of the type
in the modified quotation, it seemed to me better to have an example in
which the orthography and linguistic structure reinforced each other so
that the parts were unarguably parts. In the Pinksy quotation, the
s at parts are all fairly clearly parts of linguistic and orthographic
sentences.

> 
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
-- 
Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
Chair, Text Encoding Initiative <http://www.tei-c.org/>
Director, Digital Medievalist Project <http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/>
Associate Professor and Chair of English
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Vox: +1 403 329 2378
Fax: +1 403 382-7191
Homepage: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/