Open e-gun opened 10 months ago
Following up on this... I believe that the following is the correct map (but the fragments could use a thorough check?):
001 --> 012
002 --> 010
004 --> 020
That would make the fix:
# 002 --> 010 [Dithyrambi]
sed -i '' 's/Perseus:abo:tlg,0199,002/Perseus:abo:tlg,0199,010/g' greatscott*.xml
# 001 --> 012 [Epinicia]
sed -i '' 's/Perseus:abo:tlg,0199,001/Perseus:abo:tlg,0199,012/g' greatscott*.xml
# 004 --> 020 for μιαιφόνοϲ
# 004 --> 020 for ἑπτάτονοϲ
sed -i '' 's/Perseus:abo:tlg,0199,004/Perseus:abo:tlg,0199,020/g' greatscott*.xml
Hi! A general comment: No doubt the markup is not correct in many places, but in my eyes it should represent not the numbering on a CD-ROM, but the numbering of the TLG Canon of Authors and Works, which has been followed by others, such as Perseus and Open Greek &Latin. Similarly, we might want Cyclops as Euripides work 34, but this would make it incompatible with projects that do take the TLG Canon of Authors and Works seriously and indicate relevant editions (e.g. Murray vs Diggle vs Kovacs) elsewhere in the filename. I understand this is a hassle, and it would make sense to have a central collection for these!
But, not so fast. Bacchylides citations feature an additional complication. It turns out that LSJ originally used Jebb, and the numbering is only slightly different between Jebb and Snell/Maehler (plus Loeb). But Irigoin's edition re-starts the count when the Dithyrambs start, so that he is off from Loeb, Snell/Maehler and Jebb number by 14 (or 13 for Jebb). I sympathize with Irigoin's decision to start the count at 1 in the dithyrambs, but it won't help us link from LSJ to the text of B. E.g. check the entry for πρόσπολος. LSJ cites 14.2 (Jebb), this is Snell/Maehler and Loeb 15.2, and Irigoin 1.2. I hope this makes sense.
LSJ sv
τάλαντον
has this reference to Bacchylides:δίκαϲ ῥέπει τάλαντον Bacchylides 17.25.
The markup says:
Perseus:abo:tlg,0199,002:17:25
But work
002
is not TLG-E, right?Or maybe I have the wrong map of number-to-works. But, as you will see below, the LSJ data knows of
001
,002
, and004
. This is not enough works...As ever, thanks for all the great work you are doing with the lexicon.
===
I am using LSJ data via helmadik commit 9143e9e.
Bacchylides 003 does not exist in the dictionary data. Nor does 005, 006, 007...
Here is every pace where Bacchylides 002 appears:
Here is every pace where Bacchylides 001 appears:
Bacchylides 004: