I ran across a use for conjecture-removed today and I'm wondering if the current guidelines are sufficient.
In the following case the scribe has "spiratio passiva activa". As I read it, "passiva" is a mistake. But the scribe provides no indication so it is a conjecture.
As I read the 1.0.0 guidelines I think the following is correct.
But this sort of presumes I want my processor to leave "passiva" in the main text surrounded by square brackets [passiva] for example.
But if I didn't want this to appear, but I wanted to note its presence in the apparatus fontium.
This is closer to to the "variation-present" type which would have an empty lemma plus the @n attribute.
In fact, as it is now, the conjecture-removed type does not give us an @n attribute. Thus it would be hard to find the preceding word to use at the lemma.
At a bare minimum, I think I'd like to see the @n attribute REQUIRED on conjecture-removed types.
where conjecture-removed tells us the choice to not put in a word in this token position is a conjecture since all of the other manuscripts have a word here. One can then see rdg elements below for the options contained in the ms.
At present I think I would vote for Option B, even if the element is a bit redundant.
I ran across a use for
conjecture-removedtoday and I'm wondering if the current guidelines are sufficient.In the following case the scribe has "spiratio passiva activa". As I read it, "passiva" is a mistake. But the scribe provides no indication so it is a conjecture.
As I read the 1.0.0 guidelines I think the following is correct.
Option A: Current
But this sort of presumes I want my processor to leave "passiva" in the main text surrounded by square brackets [passiva] for example.
But if I didn't want this to appear, but I wanted to note its presence in the apparatus fontium.
This is closer to to the "variation-present" type which would have an empty lemma plus the
@nattribute.In fact, as it is now, the
conjecture-removedtype does not give us an@nattribute. Thus it would be hard to find the preceding word to use at the lemma.At a bare minimum, I think I'd like to see the
@nattribute REQUIRED onconjecture-removedtypes.Something like the following:
Option B
This would give the processor more options.
But I could also see the following working
Option C
where
conjecture-removedtells us the choice to not put in a word in this token position is a conjecture since all of the other manuscripts have a word here. One can then seerdgelements below for the options contained in the ms.At present I think I would vote for Option B, even if the element is a bit redundant.