danbalogh
commented
3 months ago Good question. One could argue for several solutions and it would indeed be best if we stuck to one. I note that I've just tried, and at present the schema reports an error if neither @source nor @resp are present on a translation division. This can of course be changed; the EGD is indeed unclear on this.
- Use neither source, nor resp, only a credit note (requiring amendment of the schema). The rationale is that crediting the translation as a whole to either Majumdar or you would be misleading.
- Use
@respto attribute the translation to you and add a credit note to say that you follow Majumdar in the translation of the Sanskrit parts. The rationale is that this would be analogous to our handling of responsibility for editions: if you have worked on it, then it is yours even if it is to a large part identical to something that has been published before. - Use
@sourceto attribute the translation to Majumdar, and a credit note explaining that he only translates the Sanskrit and the rest is by you. The rationale is that Majumdar did the brunt of the work.
I think that my order of preference is 2-1-3 out of the above. What would you think best?
@danbalogh — for tfc-campa-epigraphy, we have at out disposal a set of good English translations by R.C. Majumdar, but exclusively of Sanskrit inscriptions, or Sanskrit parts of inscriptions. Majumdar never includes any vernacular-language text segments in his translations. Rather than represent gaps in his translations as per 9.2.4, we wish to reuse whatever he has and fill the gaps with our own translations. We can furnish custom headers as per 9.2.3. Does this mean that we should use neither @source nor @resp? I find EGD unclear on this point. And the scenario in question, which I imagine may also arise in other corpora where Sanskrit exists side-by-side with a vernacular language, ought probably to be addressed explicitly in v2 of EGD.