[tei-council] Suppressed text: summary of position (FR 2242434)

[Gabriel Bodard]

Lou a écrit :
> The distinction between "(a) included in error, and marked as
> superfluous by the editor, or (b) is marked by the editor as an
> error, but with no statement as to what the correct form should be"
> looks pretty subtle to me.

Actually it's a pretty big difference, and I'd argue important (and 
different from the distinction being discussed below). Correcting to 
nothing, and marking as wrong but not offering a correction are 
different things, and should be marked differently. I've never needed to 
use (b) myself, and so the distinction I am making is between (a) and 
(c) below.

> something else. But the distinction between "replaced by nothing" and 
> (c) "replaced by something" is a fine one: surely the fundamental issue, 
> which is what the tag should mark. is "something is wrong here" -- which 
> is what <sic> does.

It's true that both of these instances (although see below) involve 
tagging text that is in some sense "wrong", but I think the argument 
people have been making is that there is a significant rather than fine 
distinction between them. (The parallel is not quite the same as that 
between <corr> and <supplied>, unless one uses supplied for restoration 
of text that is erroneously absent from the source.)

> So my preference would be to add an attribute to <sic> -- @type would do 
>   it.
> Gabby also says this would not solve the case "for interpolated verses" 
> which is quite possibly true, but (if I understand his reason for saying 
> so) the same would apply to any phrase-level element you might invent.

I'm not sure I understand your point here. What I was saying was that 
Elena's example of the ends of verse lines that should be marked as 
<superfluous> because they don't belong to the verse (and are probably, 
in the editor's opinion) interpolated, cannot really be tagged as <sic> 
with an @type to disambiguate. *If* we want to tag superfluous text 
consistently across these different uses, then something other than 
<sic> would be needed.

Hope that clarifies,

G

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Epigrapher & Digital Classicist)

Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL
Email: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/