[tei-council] Fwd: multiple lem in TEI

[Gabriel Bodard]

That's fair enough, yes. I can't help but think, though, that that's not 
the real distinction between lem and rdg though, is it? (At least, 
obviously that *may* be the rationale for preferring one reading over 
another, but it may just as well not be.) The lem may be preferred by 
the principle of lectio dificilior, for example, rather than being a 
"better" reading.

If we want to make the distinction between regularised and less regular 
readings, mightn't we either type the rdgs, or embed reg/orig within them?

G

On 2013-06-12 10:50, Marjorie Burghart wrote:
> Hi Gabriel!
> Your example is less confusing indeed, and it would work to build a
> "main text". But it still lacks a mechanism if you want to express that,
> within each or some groups of readings, one of them is to be considered
> the standard, regular spelling and the others are subvariants.
> Cheers, Marjorie
>
>
> On 12 June 2013 11:36, Gabriel Bodard <gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
> <mailto:gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>     lemGrp is not a terrible idea, as unintuitive as it may sound. On
>     the other hand, if Marjorie is right about what the example in the
>     GLs means, then shouldn't it perhaps be something like:
>
>     <app>
>        <rdgGrp>
>          <lem/>
>          <rdg/>
>        </rdgGrp>
>        <rdgGrp>
>          <rdg/>
>          <rdg/>
>        </rdgGrp>
>        <rdgGrp>
>          <rdg/>
>          <rdg/>
>        </rdgGrp>
>     </app>
>
>     so that there is one "preferred" reading for someone who wants to
>     generate a "good text" from this, and all of the variants are still
>     available to someone wanting to generate a dynamic view of all the
>     witnesses? The schematron rule would therefore stand...
>
>     G
>
>     On 2013-06-12 09:20, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>
>
>         Marjorie has sent a helpful discussion of the invalid example,
>         but it confuses me even further about which way we should go
>         with this.
>
>         More input needed: is the example or the constraint wrong?
>
>         Begin forwarded message:
>
>         From: Marjorie Burghart <marjorie.burghart at ehess.fr
>         <mailto:marjorie.burghart at ehess.fr><__mailto:marjorie.burghart at __ehess.fr
>         <mailto:marjorie.burghart at ehess.fr>>>
>
>
>         It's indeed an awkward example... If I understand correctly, its
>         problem is not so much that it has several <lem> as that it does
>         NOT really have one.
>         If you look at the example above the last one, you see that
>         "Experience" is the lemma, and "Experiment" and "Eryment" are
>         rejected readings - which is very fine: one and only one lemma,
>         1 or more readings.
>         The last example, as I understand it, expands on the previous
>         one: it notes orthographic variants in <rdg>s, grouped with the
>         main word they are subvariants in <rdgGrp>s. As a side note, in
>         the area of philology with which I am familiar (Latin language,
>         "literary" religious texts) minor orthographic variants are not
>         considered significant in the history of the transmission of the
>         text, and most philologists do not bother with them (they just
>         announce in the introduction a list of words that have been
>         given a standard spelling, usually). It is quite different
>         though with people editing vernacular texts, so it all depends.
>         But noting the orthographic variants can of course be useful if
>         you are preparing an edition with links to digital facsimile of
>         the witnesses.
>         In this case, <rdgGrp> comes in handy, but it seems that <lem>
>         has a different meaning within a rdgGrp: apparently it does not
>         mean that this is the reading of choice to retain in the main
>         text, but the canonical spelling of the word. Therefore, in the
>         last example, I do NOT see any real lemma, and I would be really
>         bothered if I had to build a "main text". There should be
>         something somewhere to note that the first <rdgGrp> containing
>         "Experience" and its minor orthographic variants IS the actual
>         lemma of this <app>.
>
>         Should there be a <lemGrp> then? :)
>
>         --
>         Sebastian Rahtz
>         Director (Research) of Academic IT
>         University of Oxford IT Services
>         13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>         <tel:%2B44%201865%20283431>
>
>
>     --
>     Dr Gabriel BODARD
>     Researcher in Digital Epigraphy
>
>     Digital Humanities
>     King's College London
>     Boris Karloff Building
>     26-29 Drury Lane
>     London WC2B 5RL
>
>     T: +44 (0)20 7848 1388 <tel:%2B44%20%280%2920%207848%201388>
>     E: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk <mailto:gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk>
>
>     http://www.digitalclassicist.__org/ <http://www.digitalclassicist.org/>
>     http://www.currentepigraphy.__org/ <http://www.currentepigraphy.org/>
>
>

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
Researcher in Digital Epigraphy

Digital Humanities
King's College London
Boris Karloff Building
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

T: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
E: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk

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