Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: A Challenge

Expand Messages
  • Robert B. Waltz
    On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, Vinton A. Dearing ... Let me also thank the other two for their clarifications. All is not yet clear to me --
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 12, 1997
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, "Vinton A. Dearing" <dearing@...>
      wrote, in part:

      >Thanks to Bob Waltz for his interest and to Jimmy Adair for
      >explaining some things in my original message. Some additional

      Let me also thank the other two for their clarifications. All
      is not yet clear to me -- but then, that is what the books are
      for. :-)

      > My method of textual criticism is not "mine": it is a genealogical
      >method that expands Walter Greg's rules in The Calculus of Variants
      >(1927). Greg divided variations into simple and complex types.
      >Simple variations have only two readings, e.g., "yes" vs. "yea";
      >complex variations have more than two, e.g. "no" vs. "nay" vs.
      >"nix" vs. "nada" vs. "not on your life" etc.

      If it helps anyone in reading my Encyclopedia articles, the former
      are what I call "binary readings"; the latter are "ternary" or
      higher order readings. It seems to me I've seen other terminology,
      too. Has anyone attempted to set a standard for this?

      [ ... ]

      >Silva and Kirsopp used to
      >collate manuscripts by reading aloud to one another, and she reported
      >that often a monk studying nearby would "correct" what she was
      >saying. Such correction by memory must have been possible as soon as
      >people set a high value on the sacred texts.

      An interesting and noteworthy observation. Thanks for bringing it

      [ ... ]

      > Let me try again to explain what I think might be possible in
      >ringbreaking. Suppose we have seven texts, and variations as follows:
      >tis] A; pou B,C,D,E,F,G; dh] A,B; de C,D,.E,F,G; pallakh] A,B,C;
      >gunh D,E,F,G; uioi] A,B,C,D; uiwn E,F,G; eikosth] A,B,C,E; eikadi
      >D,F,G; and osa] A,B,C,D,E,F; a G. Now, according to Greg's rules
      >(which I accept), the relationship of the seven texts is
      >A--B--C,D,E,F--G and there is what I call a ring in the group of four
      >texts. Rings only occur when at least two groups of texts "exchange"
      >readings, as Greg put it, so the first and last variations are not
      >part of the ring. The second variation is not part of a ring because
      >A and B don't exchange readings with any other pair or more of other
      >texts. The ring comes when C and D have uioi where E and F have uiwn,
      >and C and E have eikosth where D and F eikadi (never mind that other
      >texts have these readings, C and D and E and F are the only ones to
      >exchange readings. (Another way to put it is to say that the pair C,D
      >overlaps both the pair C,E and the pair D,F, and so on around the
      >ring; it is also true that a pair which overlaps only one other pair
      >will not be part of a ring.) And what is true of pairs is true of
      >larger groups of texts. Isn't there some way to start with A, let
      >us say, and feel along the sequence A (which has tis), A--B (which
      >have dh), recognize that we have come to a ring when we come to C,
      >break it, say between C and E, and feel along once more through C
      >(A,B and C have pallakh), to D (all four have uioi; we disregard the
      >fact E has eikosth like A, B and C), to F (D, F and G have eikadi),
      >and then separately from F to E (E, F and G have uiwn and E has the
      >now-sourceless eikosth) and from F to G (all but G have osa). Maybe
      >not, but it's a challenge.

      That does help a bit. I'm not sure I could construct this, but at
      least I understand it a bit better.

      Unfortunately, I can't see any way to help with the code. I also
      showed the problem to another programmer type (a higher order sort
      of person than I am, BTW; I slog code to get work done, but he
      programs for fun -- shudder!). I'm afraid we were in agreement
      that the problem isn't well enough defined for the algorithm
      to be evident. No doubt if the problem were better specified,
      we would have better luck -- but if it were better specified,
      no doubt Vinton Deering the challenge would not have been
      offered. :-)

      Wish I could help more.


      Robert B. Waltz

      Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
      Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
      (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.