search

BetaMasaheft / Documentation

Die Schriftkultur des christlichen Äthiopiens: Eine multimediale Forschungsumgebung
3 stars 3 forks source link

Update LIT4860Litanies according to Leonard Bahr #2553

Open CarstenHoffmannMarburg opened 1 month ago

CarstenHoffmannMarburg commented 1 month ago

Leonard Bahr made the following remark remark in https://github.com/BetaMasaheft/Documentation/issues/2552:

"And optionally, the two Liṭon prayers for the evening often appear with the other Liṭon prayers. (In the end, the entries for the Liṭon prayers would need to be thoroughly revised, because the current system of attributing to each prayer a weekday is not reflected by the earliest MSS. But this would require a separate issue.)."

I think, there is no reason not to add this information to the abstract. @LeonardBahr: Can you give us examples of early manuscripts, that do not have this order?

@eu-genia @karljonaskarlsson

LeonardBahr commented 1 month ago

I mean, I understand the initial desire to attribute weekdays to the prayers, because it reflects the present tradition.

However, two points I would like to address here:

1) The information in the TEI/XML of LIT4860 "The following order reflects that of the modern printed editions." is wrong in five of seven cases:

I do not know how to "prove" this. You could take any printed missal, psalter, book of hours in the Hammerschmidt Library. Alternatively, I could send you the digitised missal from which I typed down all litanies in June 2020 as a student assistant for the HLC.

2) Eight from nine manuscripts I analysed in my MA had a different sequence of the prayers. Only two shared the same sequence, but the sequence is once again different than in today's tradition. There is an overview with the indications of the MSS on p. 111 of my thesis, which you can check here: https://www.academia.edu/107020428/The_Litanies_Intercessory_Prayers_in_Ethiopian_Manuscripts. (The sequence of the present tradition seems to go back to a much later manuscript tradition, the exact period of standardisation of which I am currently trying to detect by research). Hence, I would opt for a solution that detaches the files from weekdays and focusses on the incipit.

CarstenHoffmannMarburg commented 1 month ago

The general description is the following:

Litanies for the days of the week. The assignment of the litanies to the days of the week varies accross manuscripts. The text of the litanies is available in their individual records: Liṭon za-sanuy, Liṭon za-śalus, Liṭon za-ʿārb, Liṭon za-qadām, Liṭon za-ʾǝḥud, Liṭon za-ḫamus, Liṭon za-maḫātǝwa fāsikā, Liṭon za-rabuʿ.

I think, it would be useful to change the titles of the individual records, e.g. "Liṭon za-sanuy" -> ????

Can you provide incipits or propose a manuscript, where I can take them?

LeonardBahr commented 1 month ago

[EDITED, 20:45 pm:]

Yes and with great pleasure. Shall we take those I used in my thesis on p. 32-33 (see below) or do you prefer longer versions?

CAe 1807: Liṭon ʾǝnza naʾakkʷǝto ʾǝsma ʿaqabanna CAe 4858: Liṭon sǝmǝka ḥǝyāw CAe 4266: Liṭon la-tǝruṣ ʾǝgziʾo CAe 4264: Liṭon kama tādḫǝnanna CAe 4268: Liṭon tazakkar ʾǝgziʾo CAe 4265: Liṭon qadāme ṣaggā CAe 4859: Liṭon wa-kāʿba nāstabaqqʷǝʿo la-ʾamlāka mǝḥrat CAe 3571: Liṭon soba ʾakko CAe 1808: Liṭon za-sark

CarstenHoffmannMarburg commented 1 month ago

I think the shorter titles from your thesis are alright.

CarstenHoffmannMarburg commented 1 month ago

I changed the titles in the records mentioned above. However, I did not find a record with the title "Liṭon za-sark ʾamlākǝna" (except for ms. BDLaethe1, f. 7v) or "Liṭon za-sark ʾǝsma rassayanna". Do these records already exist, or it it necessary to create two new records for them?

LeonardBahr commented 1 month ago

As the updated comment above indicate, there exists the ID CAe 1808: Liṭon za-sark. It is, however, a humorous deception because there are two Liṭon za-sark, which often circulate independently: Liṭon za-sark (ʾǝsma rassayanna), already present in the Aksumite collection and usually found in Ṣoma dǝggʷā, and Liṭon za-sark (ʾamlākǝna). I guess we could assign to CAe 1808 one of the texts and then create another ID for the other one? Would that corrupt a lot of manuscript descriptions that refer to CAe 1808? Is there a way to see in BM how many such references exist and could we change them, too?

LeonardBahr commented 1 month ago

"I think the shorter titles from your thesis are alright."

I agree. We could still use longer incipits as proper incipits for the TEI/XML files.

LeonardBahr commented 1 month ago

Some more information on these two texts follows. That in square brackets is just for transparency, not for the public page.

1) Liṭon za-sark (ʾamlākǝna):

Titles ሊጦን፡ ዘሰርክ፡ Liṭon za-sark ‘Liṭon of the evening’ [called as such in AKM-009 and in BL Or. 545] አምላክነ፡ ʾAmlākǝna ‘Our God’ [called as such in BL Or. 545] ዘሰርክ፡ Za-sark ‘Of the evening’ [called as such in BnF Éth. 74] ኪዳን፡ ዘሰርክ፡ Kidān za-sark ‘Kidān of the evening’ [called as such in BnF Éth. d’Abb. 72]

Witnesses [all missals from the 17th century] ‐ AKM-009, [fols 28vb18–29ra5] ‐ BL Or. 545, [fol. 12vb9–12vc20] ‐ BnF Éth. 74, [fol. 11ra16–11rb16] ‐ BnF Éth. d’Abb. 13, [fol. 8va5–8vb8] ‐ BnF Éth. d’Abb. 72, [fols 12vb5–13ra14] ‐ MR-025, [fols 22vb13–23ra16] ‐ Ṭānāsee 68, [fol. 18ra10–18rb17]

Edition Hammerschmidt, Ernst 1959. ‘Das Sündenbekenntnis über dem Weihrauch bei den Äthiopiern’, Oriens Christianus, 43 (1959), 103–109. Velat, Bernard 1966. Meʿerāf: Commun de l’office divin éthiopien pour toute l’année, Texte éthiopien avec variantes, ed. Bernard Velat, Patrologia Orientalis, 34/1–2 (Paris: Firmin-Didot et Cie, éditeurs, 1966). 7

Secondary Bibliography Bahr, L. 2023. The Litanies: Intercessory Prayers in Ethiopian Manuscripts, M.A. Thesis, Hamburg: Universität Hamburg (2023).

2) Liṭon za-sark (ʾǝsma rassayanna):

Titles ጸሎተ፡ ሰርክ፡ Ṣalota sark ‘Prayer of the evening’ [This is its title in the Aksumite collection] ዘሰርክ፡ Za-sark ‘Of the evening’ [This is its title in BnF Éth. d’Abb. 72 ] ዓዲ፡ ሊጦን፡ ዘሰርክ፡ በጾመ፡ ድጓ፡ ዘይትበሀል፡ ʿĀdi liṭon za-sark ba-ṣoma dǝggʷā za-yǝtbahal ‘Further litany of the evening, which is said in Ṣoma dǝggʷā’ [It is called as such in a printed psalter]

Witnesses [all missals from the 17th century except the first entry] ‐ Aksumite collection, [fols 57vb29–58rb8] ‐ BL Or. 545, [fols 20vb18–21rb4] ‐ BnF Éth. 74, [fol. 15ra7–15rb11] ‐ BnF Éth. d’Abb. 72, [fols 33va16–34ra9] ‐ Ṭānāsee 68, [fol. 26ra9–26rb17]

Edition Velat, Bernard 1966. Meʿerāf: Commun de l’office divin éthiopien pour toute l’année, Texte éthiopien avec variantes, ed. Bernard Velat, Patrologia Orientalis, 34/1–2 (Paris: Firmin-Didot et Cie, éditeurs, 1966). 7–8

Secondary Bibliography Bahr, L. 2023. The Litanies: Intercessory Prayers in Ethiopian Manuscripts, M.A. Thesis, Hamburg: Universität Hamburg (2023).

CarstenHoffmannMarburg commented 1 month ago

As the updated comment above indicate, there exists the ID CAe 1808: Liṭon za-sark. It is, however, a humorous deception because there are two Liṭon za-sark, which often circulate independently: Liṭon za-sark (ʾǝsma rassayanna), already present in the Aksumite collection and usually found in Ṣoma dǝggʷā, and Liṭon za-sark (ʾamlākǝna). I guess we could assign to CAe 1808 one of the texts and then create another ID for the other one? Would that corrupt a lot of manuscript descriptions that refer to CAe 1808? Is there a way to see in BM how many such references exist and could we change them, too?

I suggest to create two new IDs for both of them. The CAe 1808 should remain and be transformed explicitly to a general record, what means, that this ID will be used for all cases, where it is not certain, which Liṭon za-sark is needed, what is the case for most of the existing manuscript witnesses.

LeonardBahr commented 1 month ago

Good morning, Carsten. Sounds like an optimal solution. But the two new IDs would still be related to CAe 4860, right? I think that would be important, so that we would have all Liṭon prayers unified under one CAe ID.

LeonardBahr commented 1 month ago

Selam selam. Some comments and proposals for your provisional translation of the titles:

N.B.: The first word, Liṭon, is not part of the text of the prayer itself, although it does occur as a title/heading sometimes. We may leave it out completely. I found it helpful during my MA to add it in order to know exactly that it is a Liṭon prayer every time when one sees it. This seems obsolete as all CAe IDs are/will be linked to the general record (CAe 4860) and their status as Liṭon prayers is obvious. Some of the translations below only make sense if we look at one or two more of the Ethiopic words. However, it seems unnecessary to add more Ethiopic words to the title merely for the sake of having nice translations. In those cases, I added those words in English in brackets to make the translations meaningful.

ʾǝnza naʾakkʷǝto ʾǝsma ʿaqabanna ‘While we thank him for protecting us’ sǝmǝka ḥǝyāw ‘Your living name’ la-tǝruṣ ʾǝgziʾo ‘That (your compassion), O Lord, may run (towards us)’ kama tādḫǝnanna ‘That you may save us’ tazakkar ʾǝgziʾo ‘Remember, O Lord’ qadāme ṣaggā ‘ The beginning of grace’ wa-kāʿba nāstabaqqʷǝʿo la-ʾamlāka mǝḥrat ‘And again we beseech the God of compassion’ soba ʾakko ‘If (the Lord) had not been (with us)’ ʾamlākǝna ‘Our God’ ʾǝsma rassayanna ‘For you have brought us (enjoyment)’

CarstenHoffmannMarburg commented 4 weeks ago

I will update the titles and suggest to keep the older, longer ones as second titles.

CarstenHoffmannMarburg commented 4 weeks ago

Velat, Bernard 1966. Meʿerāf: Commun de l’office divin éthiopien pour toute l’année, Texte éthiopien avec variantes, ed. Bernard Velat, Patrologia Orientalis, 34/1–2 (Paris: Firmin-Didot et Cie, éditeurs, 1966). 7

Is it correct to read 'page 7' in the end?

<bibl><ptr target="bm:bm:Velat1966MeerafText"/><citedRange unit="page">7</citedRange></bibl>

CarstenHoffmannMarburg commented 4 weeks ago

‐ BnF Éth. d’Abb. 13, [fol. 8va5–8vb8]

This manuscript does not have an ID yet. @DenisNosnitsin1970: Can I create a stub for BnF Abbadie 13?

CarstenHoffmannMarburg commented 4 weeks ago

Witnesses [all missals from the 17th century except the first entry] ‐ Aksumite collection, [fols 57vb29–58rb8]

The Aksumite is a work (LIT1047Aksumi), but not a manuscript. I will reference it in a relation, but not as a witness in the source desc.

CarstenHoffmannMarburg commented 4 weeks ago

Some more information on these two texts follows. That in square brackets is just for transparency, not for the public page.

1) Liṭon za-sark (ʾamlākǝna):

Titles ሊጦን፡ ዘሰርክ፡ Liṭon za-sark ‘Liṭon of the evening’ [called as such in AKM-009 and in BL Or. 545] አምላክነ፡ ʾAmlākǝna ‘Our God’ [called as such in BL Or. 545] ዘሰርክ፡ Za-sark ‘Of the evening’ [called as such in BnF Éth. 74] ኪዳን፡ ዘሰርክ፡ Kidān za-sark ‘Kidān of the evening’ [called as such in BnF Éth. d’Abb. 72] (...)

2) Liṭon za-sark (ʾǝsma rassayanna):

Titles ጸሎተ፡ ሰርክ፡ Ṣalota sark ‘Prayer of the evening’ [This is its title in the Aksumite collection] ዘሰርክ፡ Za-sark ‘Of the evening’ [This is its title in BnF Éth. d’Abb. 72 ] ዓዲ፡ ሊጦን፡ ዘሰርክ፡ በጾመ፡ ድጓ፡ ዘይትበሀል፡ ʿĀdi liṭon za-sark ba-ṣoma dǝggʷā za-yǝtbahal ‘Further litany of the evening, which is said in Ṣoma dǝggʷā’ [It is called as such in a printed psalter] (...)

Are there any texts, incipits or explicits available for Liṭon za-sark (ʾǝsma rassayanna) and Liṭon za-sark (ʾamlākǝna)?

LeonardBahr commented 4 weeks ago

"Is it correct to read 'page 7' in the end?"

Yes, page 7. The other text pp. 7 to 8.

Are there any texts, incipits or explicits available for Liṭon za-sark (ʾǝsma rassayanna) and Liṭon za-sark (ʾamlākǝna)?

Yes, give me some minutes and I will post it here below.

LeonardBahr commented 4 weeks ago

Full texts:

Liṭon za-sark (ʾamlākǝna) ይ፡ ካ፡ አምላክነ፡ ዘዲበ፡ ኪሩቤል፡ ትነብር፡ እምኀበ፡ መላእክት፡ ትትአኰት፡ ወትሴባሕ፡ አንተ፡ ውእቱ፡ ዘከፈልከነ፡ ንባእ፡ ውስተ፡ ጽርሐ፡ ቅዱስ፡ ማኅደርከ፡ ንዘከር፡ ቅድሳተ፡ ስብሐቲከ፡ ወንፍዲ፡ ለከ፡ ዘሰርክ፡ አኰቴተ፡ አንተ፡ ተወከፍ፡ ዘኵልነ፡ ሰክዮተ፡ ወበቍዔተ፡ በተአምኖ፡ ዘውስተ፡ ልብው፡ ዘበሰማያት፡ ምስጢርከ፡ በጼና፡ ሠናይ፡ መዐዛ፡ ዕቀብ፡ ኵለነ፡ ዘእንበለ፡ ጻሕብ፡ ወዘእንበለ፡ ተመውኦ፡ ወዘእንበለ፡ ማዕቅፍ፡ አድኅን፡ አእጋረነ፡ እምዳኅፅ፡ ወአዕይንተ፡ እምአንብዕ፡ ወነፍስተነ፡ እሞተ፡ ኀጢአት፡ ወደምረነ፡ ምስለ፡ እለ፡ ድኅኑ፡ ብከ፡ በጸሎተ፡ ኵሎሙ፡ እለ፡ እምዓለም፡ አሥመሩከ፡ በ፩ዱ፡ ወልድከ፡ ዘቦቱ፡ ለከ፡ ምስሌሁ፡ ወምስለ፡ ቅዱስ፡ መንፈስ፡ ስብሐት፡ ወእኂዝ፡ ይእዜኒ፡ ወዘልፈኒ፡ ወለዓለመ፡ ዓለም። ይ፡ ሕ፡ አሜን።

Liṭon za-sark (ʾǝsma rassayanna) ይ፡ ካ፡ ናስተበቍዕ፡ ዘኵሎ፡ ይእኅዝ፡ እግዚአብሔር፡ አብ፡ ለእግዚእ፡ ወመድኀኒነ፡ ኢየሱስ፡ ክርስቶስ፡ እስመ፡ ረሰየነ፡ ተድላ፡ ካዕባ፡ ውስተ፡ ዝንቱ፡ መካን፡ ቅዱስ፡ ንቁም፡ ንሰብሕ፡ ወንዘምር፡ ለዘበኵሉ፡ ቅዱስ፡ ወብፁዕ፡ ስመ፡ ዚአሁ፡ ዘኵሎ፡ ይእኅዝ፡ እግዚአብሔር፡ አምላክነ። ይ፡ ዲ፡ ጸልዩ። ይ፡ ሕ፡ አቡነ፡ ዘበሰማያት። ይ፡ ካ፡ እግዚኦ፡ ዘኵሎ፡ ትእኅዝ፡ ንስእለከ፡ ወናስተበቍዐከ፡ በከመ፡ ዐቀብከነ፡ ኑኀ፡ ዕለት፡ ወአብጻሕከነ፡ ካዕበ፡ ውስተ፡ ብርሃነ፡ ሰርክ፡ ዕቀበነ፡ በኑኀ፡ ሌሊት፡ ሱላሜ፡ ዘእንበለ፡ ኀጢአት፡ ሰርከ፡ ወሌሊተ፡ ጸግወነ፡ ወአድኅነነ፡ እምፍርሀተ፡ ሌሊት፡ ወእምትካዝ፡ ዘይወስድ፡ ውስተ፡ ጽልመት፡ እምሰብእ፡ ዐማፂ፡ ወሐባሊ፡ ባልሐነ፡ ዘአበስነ፡ ወዘተሰወረነ፡ ሕገ፡ ሰብእ፡ አናሕሲ፡ ለነ፡ እስመ፡ ኄር፡ ወመፍቀሬ፡ ሰብእ፡ አንተ፡ እግዚአብሔር፡ አምላክነ፡ በ፩ዱ፡ ወልድከ፡ ዘቦቱ፡ ለከ፡ ምስሌሁ፡ ወምስለ፡ ቅዱስ፡ መንፈስ፡ ስብሐት፡ ወእኂዝ፡ ይእዜኒ፡ ወዘልፈኒ፡ ወለዓለመ፡ ዓለም። ይ፡ ሕ፡ አሜን።

LeonardBahr commented 4 weeks ago

General question: If the texts are short enough, do we still need incipits and explicits?

CarstenHoffmannMarburg commented 4 weeks ago

General question: If the texts are short enough, do we still need incipits and explicits?

Thank you for the full texts! No, I meant: Either full texts or incipits. I will update the records in a minute.

CarstenHoffmannMarburg commented 4 weeks ago

Full texts:

Liṭon za-sark (ʾamlākǝna) ይ፡ ካ፡ አምላክነ፡ ዘዲበ፡ ኪሩቤል፡ (...)

Liṭon za-sark (ʾǝsma rassayanna) ይ፡ ካ፡ ናስተበቍዕ፡ ዘኵሎ፡ ይእኅዝ፡ እግዚአብሔር፡ አብ፡ ለእግዚእ፡ ወመድኀኒነ፡ ኢየሱስ፡ ክርስቶስ፡ እስመ፡ ረሰየነ፡ ተድላ፡ (...)

Are both texts taken from your Master thesis?

LeonardBahr commented 4 weeks ago

No, like the bulk of litanies on BM they are based on:

Anon. 1957. መጽሐፈ፡ ቅዳሴ፡ (Maṣḥafa qǝddāse, ‘Book of the Missal’) (ʾAśmarā: ba-māḫbara ḥawāryāt fǝre hāymānot ba-kokaba ṣǝbāḥ māttamiyā bet tāttama, 1957).

For the time being it is fine I would say. We could discuss with Dorothea (@thea-m) in the near future if the edition by Velat 1966 - based, however, on late MSS - would not have been a better choice and if it would make sense to update the entries according to his edition.

eu-genia commented 4 weeks ago

LIT1047Aksumi

Aksumite collection = UM-039 (it is a unique manuscript, hapax as far as we know)

LeonardBahr commented 4 weeks ago

Thank you, Eugenia!

CarstenHoffmannMarburg commented 4 weeks ago

No, like the bulk of litanies on BM they are based on:

Anon. 1957. መጽሐፈ፡ ቅዳሴ፡ (Maṣḥafa qǝddāse, ‘Book of the Missal’) (ʾAśmarā: ba-māḫbara ḥawāryāt fǝre hāymānot ba-kokaba ṣǝbāḥ māttamiyā bet tāttama, 1957).

For the time being it is fine I would say. We could discuss with Dorothea (@thea-m) in the near future if the edition by Velat 1966 - based, however, on late MSS - would not have been a better choice and if it would make sense to update the entries according to his edition.

I assume it is bm:1957Qeddase.

LeonardBahr commented 4 weeks ago

Witnesses [all missals from the 17th century except the first entry] ‐ Aksumite collection, [fols 57vb29–58rb8]

The Aksumite is a work (LIT1047Aksumi), but not a manuscript. I will reference it in a relation, but not as a witness in the source desc.

BM has not only a general CAe ID for the Aksumite collection, but also for the larger textual unit (CAe 6255: https://betamasaheft.eu/works/LIT6255Euchologion/main), the unique collection of prayers/euchologion, in which the above short litany ʾǝsma rassayanna (CAe 7010) is preserved. If you still want to do a relation or sth. besides indicating it as a witness, you could add a reference to it. In this regard, it seems that notes like "This textual unit is included in the following 1 textual units (saws:formsPartOf)" are common on BM?

LeonardBahr commented 4 weeks ago

Perfect. I think everything could go online now. I see https://betamasaheft.eu/works/LIT7009Amlakena/main is still in a primitive state, while https://betamasaheft.eu/works/LIT7010Rassayanna/main does not work at all. But take your time, no need to rush. And again, many thanks for all the help @CarstenHoffmannMarburg!

EDIT 22:00 pm: Now I see both entries with the provided information online. Thank you so much!

LeonardBahr commented 3 weeks ago

Thinking of our endeavour, I just realised that there is one more aspect to consider:

It appears that CAe 4860 is the general record for the Liṭon prayers of the morning only (mainly seven prayers, the sequence of which varying from MS to MS). But there is a record of an even more general level: CAe 3188 (https://betamasaheft.eu/LIT3188Liton): "General record for a not further identifiable collection of litanies". Thus, I believe every Liṭon prayer should find mention there, while the seven morning prayers should be found under the sub-general record CAe 4860 and the two Liṭon prayers of the evening under sub-general CAe 1808. But the two evening prayers should not be included in in the General Description (abstract) of CAe 4860. To illustrate this "hierarchical" structure in the form of a list:

CarstenHoffmannMarburg commented 3 weeks ago

Liton-prayers of the morning are already listed in the abstract of LIT3188Liton. However, , is not mentioned among the "litanies of the week".

<abstract>
            <p>General record for a not further identifiable collection of litanies.</p>
            <ab>Specific litanies that can be in the collection are e.g. 
               <ref type="work" corresp="LIT1806Litonz"/>, 
               <ref type="work" corresp="LIT1808Litonz"/>, 
               <ref type="work" corresp="LIT4713Liton"/>, 
               <ref type="work" corresp="LIT3571Litonz"/>, 
               the litanies of the week in <ref type="work" corresp="LIT4860Litanies"/>, including 
               <ref type="work" corresp="LIT1807Litonz"/>, 
               <ref type="work" corresp="LIT4858Litany"/>, 
               <ref type="work" corresp="LIT4266Litonz"/>, 
               <ref type="work" corresp="LIT4264Salota"/>, 
               <ref type="work" corresp="LIT4268Tazakkar"/>, 
               <ref type="work" corresp="LIT4265Litonz"/>,
               <ref type="work" corresp="LIT4859Litany"/>         
            </ab>
LeonardBahr commented 3 weeks ago

Liton-prayers of the morning are already listed in the abstract of LIT3188Liton. However, , is not mentioned among the "litanies of the week".

There is a lacuna between the two commas.

LeonardBahr commented 3 weeks ago

I am still a bit troubled by the entries for the seven week days:

As far as I can see you have added my above titles (based on the incipits) as subtitles ("Titles"), but not as the main titles, i.e. the title type in the XML/TEI file. In the title type it is still written sth. like "Liṭon za-ʿārb". But this will still lead one to associate a prayer with a specific week day, so the whole GitHub issue remains unsolved. I would propose to do it the other way around. To take the example of CAe 1807: ʾƎnza naʾakkʷǝto ʾǝsma ʿaqabanna can be the title type and "Liṭon za-sanuy" should be a subtitle under "Titles".

CarstenHoffmannMarburg commented 3 weeks ago

Liton-prayers of the morning are already listed in the abstract of LIT3188Liton. However, , is not mentioned among the "litanies of the week".

There is a lacuna between the two commas.

LIT3571Litonz was not mentioned among the 'litanies of the week' but on another place in that list. I changed that and put LIT3571Litonz to the 'litanies of the week'.

CarstenHoffmannMarburg commented 3 weeks ago

I am still a bit troubled by the entries for the seven week days:

As far as I can see you have added my above titles (based on the incipits) as subtitles ("Titles"), but not as the main titles, i.e. the title type in the XML/TEI file. In the title type it is still written sth. like "Liṭon za-ʿārb". But this will still lead one to associate a prayer with a specific week day, so the whole GitHub issue remains unsolved. I would propose to do it the other way around. To take the example of CAe 1807: ʾƎnza naʾakkʷǝto ʾǝsma ʿaqabanna can be the title type and "Liṭon za-sanuy" should be a subtitle under "Titles".

The titles have been changed to the new incipit based titles, that you proposed:

<title xml:id="t1" xml:lang="gez">እንዘ፡ ነአኵቶ፡ እስመ፡ ዐቀበነ፡</title>
<title corresp="#t1" xml:lang="gez" type="normalized">ʾƎnza naʾakkʷǝto ʾǝsma ʿaqabanna</title>
<title corresp="#t1" xml:lang="en" type="normalized">While we thank him for protecting us</title>
LeonardBahr commented 3 weeks ago

Yes, I saw that, but the idea of the whole issue was sth. else:

These are not titles existing in MSS but created titles based on the incipit (created by us) that would enable us to clearly refer to one prayer and distinguishing it from others. They should be the main titles (= title type) in the big grew area on the top of the page. That is also why I initially did not provide translations.

CarstenHoffmannMarburg commented 3 weeks ago

I think, the title in t1 (normalized) will soon appear in the grey area on top.