6489Re: [textualcriticism] Listing versional evidence in an apparatus
- Jun 4, 2011Thanks for the helpful response!I personally find the distinction between substantials and accidentals an important methodological distinction as well, and I have utilized it extensively. I have in the past done things similar to what you recommended by conflating two orthographies into a single variant lexeme, and that solved most of my problems. It does limit one's ability to address questions of orthography however.But what about if all three variants are substantially different? It is conceivable (though I can't think of any examples off the top of my head) that a versional reading could oppose the third variant without supporting either of the first two against each other if the version is ambiguous with regard to the first two or the versional language is not capable of expressing easily the finer nuances of the semantic difference between the first two variants.-Drew
--- On Fri, 6/3/11, Frank Polak <frankha@...> wrote:
From: Frank Polak <frankha@...>
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Listing versional evidence in an apparatus
Date: Friday, June 3, 2011, 3:59 AMDear Drew,In this case it would be important, I think, to distinguish(a) within the field of source language:betweensubstantials (semantic/syntactic/word order/morphological) differerenceand accidentals (such as orthography)- although for other classifications orthography would still be different.(b0 between source language and version language (and maybe also for different version languages,since they also behave in different ways)In the case you suggested one could use different "equals" signs. For instance:Lexeme OL1 (SP1)(SP2)==V/OL3In any case, if the difference is between SP1/SP2, you have the same lexeme.Best regards,Frank PolakOn 03/06/2011, at 01:12, Drew Longacre wrote:Hi all,
I am trying to figure out the most efficient way to list versional evidence in a textual apparatus for a particular circumstance, and I was wondering if anyone had any ideas.
The situation is particularly significant in Old Testament textual criticism, but obtains for any text with translational evidence. How do you list versional evidence that does not differentiate between two orthographically different but semantically indistinguishable original language variants, and yet provides evidence semantically in favor of those variants contrary to a third original language reading with a different meaning? Here is an illustration of the problem:
SP = spelling
OL = original language witness
V = versional (translational) witness
word(SP1) OL1 V?/ word(SP2) OL2 V?/ differentword OL3.
If the versional evidence is significant enough to innclude because of its testimony against the third variant, where should it be included, since it supports semantically both variants one and two against variant three, but cannot be used to support variant one or two against the other? To list the versional variant in support of only one orthographic variant would be to pad the evidence for that variant. To list the version under both orthographies could lead to loading improbable orthographical variants with irrelevant versional evidence, as well as becoming quite cumbersome and space-inefficient. Perhaps a question mark (or other symbol) could be used to indicate that the versional evidence could support either variant one or two? Any thoughts you might have on the best way to list this complicated situation in an apparatus would be helpful.
- << Previous post in topic