Decision: Normalisation of i/j and u/v?

[TillmannTaape]

Should the TC be completely diplomatic regarding i, u, v?

Currently the TC contains non-existend js, and u and v are normalised. We could easily change this back by replacing all js with is and all us with vs.

Question: do we want a completely naked diplomatic transcription, or should the TC have interventions such as normalised i/j and u/v?

Action: talk to other scholars of (digital) editions. Hunt down other DH scholars at RSA?

[TillmannTaape]

Pros and cons of strict, naked diplomatic tc:

Pros: Pedagogic value (palaeography training). Shows our degree of intervention (difference between TC and TCN more obvious). More useful as a corpus for machine learning/AI.

Cons: Difficult to read. Slippery slope?

[ps2270]

I am rethinking our decision to do this. Think about this Vernis noir sans fœu sans Vernis noir sans fœv sans demonter les harnois ou deffaire demonter les harnois ov deffaire les bandes des bahus les bandes des bahvs Prens vernis dhvile daspic & y mesle du noir a noircir ov du noir de lampe & sans fœv il se destrempe de soimesme Vernis avecq vne broisse & il sera bien tost sec Le vernis de tovrmentine seroict bien bon Mays il ne seche pas si tost Vernis des gravevrs svr le fer Prens hvile de lin ov hvile de noix & av liev de poix

I notice that in Palissy, it is only caps in which a v is used for u: See here: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1050822.r=palissy?rk=42918;4

I don't think we should make this change.

[TillmannTaape]

With all lowercase u:

Prens uernis dhuile daspic & y mesle du noir a noircir ou du noir de lampe & sans fœu il se destrempe de soimesme

[Pantagrueliste]

lowercase v to u uppercsse U to V uppercase J to I lowercase j to i

to be done with oxygen

[njr2128]

@Pantagrueliste or @thuchacz, can someone please elaborate on the decision that was made yesterday. The notes simply say "will go ahead with this - see how it looks" Is this about doing it in one branch and potentially rolling back? Please provide as much detail as possible so that we can figure out any potential problems that may arise (like overwriting work that has taken place after this branch) or workflow necessities (such as doing this towards the end rather than earlier so that we don't accidentally delete work that has come after that branch)? @tcatapano, FYI. Perhaps need a consult from you here

[njr2128]

DECISION: no normalization for u/v and for i/j after numerous conversations and consultations with MHS (email thread)

[thuchacz]

Reopening because this now lives in the "Distant Desiderata" project, where it is an open issue

[njr2128]

Transferring this issue to the Sandbox from m-k-manuscript-data as this is now a separate project from the Edition proper. If this is a project of interest, it should be undertaken in a new space