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

Re: New rating system proposal for UBS

Expand Messages
  • yennifmit
    Hi Tommy, I now see that {e=i} covers the situation where there are a number of equally commendable readings. This wasn t immediately clear to me based on the
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 17, 2009
      Hi Tommy,

      I now see that {e=i} covers the situation where there are a number of equally commendable readings. This wasn't immediately clear to me based on the definition that "External and internal evidence are balanced or, alternatively, external evidence favors one variant reading, internal evidence another." Perhaps it would be better to say that {e=i} means "The evidence is ambivalent concerning which reading should be adopted."

      However, this does not change my problem with your proposal, which is that it groups criteria that should be allowed to stand on their own. I would rather see a rating system where a profile is developed for each reading of a variant passage based on a set of independent criteria. One reason for wanting this is my experience with information systems: if the data is in the right form then more can be done with it. I'm afraid that arbitrary grouping of evidence into external and internal camps would be a retrograde step in this respect.

      Best,

      Tim Finney

      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Tommy Wasserman" <tomwas@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hello Tim,
      >
      > you need to study my system more closely. If there are two equally good
      > readings the rating for the decision in that variation-unit (not the
      > invidual readings) is e=i (see the definitions in the beginning of this
      > thread).
      >
      > Tommy
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.