 |
 |
Good observation. Thanks for the recommendation. -Drew --- On Fri, 6/3/11, Franz Fischer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: Franz Fischer <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: Listing versional evidence in an apparatus > To: [log in to unmask] > Date: Friday, June 3, 2011, 6:46 AM > > The editio critica maior of the > NT uses bi-drectional arrows > > indicating that a version supports two or more > readings but not > > others. So if your three readings were labelled a b > and c, it would read > > > > ↔ a/b V > > One might add "cum" to indicate the semantical nature of > the V evidence: > ↔ a/b cum V > > Best wishes, Franz > > > > > Best wishes > > > > David > > > > On 2 Jun 2011, at 23:15, 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: > > > > > > Key: > > > > > > 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 include 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. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Drew Longacre >