Open stenskjaer opened 6 years ago
We like this idea. We could use this as an example of the phenomenon as well as a passage from a theological context to illustrate.
This divisio textus is one good example. Another good example is the expositio litterae from an arts commentary. I can find another example to show that version of lemmas too.
Very often in an Aristotelian context an explanation of a text will include a lot of close references to the text. This could be an example of a division of a chunk of text:
Later in the text you will see detailed exposition of every line/word in the text along the lines of
All these references to the primary source are traditionally referred to as lemmata, and a often considered to have a slightly different status in the text than any other quotations. They will therefore also often have a different graphical representation.
The question is now: How is this best expressed in the encoding? Currently what I do is I mark them as
<quote type="lemma">
. An alternative would be to use<mentioned type="lemma">
or maybe something completely different. I use thequote
because that is what is looks like to me. The phrase is not referred to as a material supposition used in a discussion of the linguistic phenomenon (which I partly associatementioned
with), but merely works as a reference quote pointing us to the source text.So I vote for
<quote type="lemma">
until I'm giving a better suggestion.But I think it's something we could schematize as it is a common phenomenon, and I'm sure it's just as common in any other commentary tradition.