| Version 7 (modified by , 14 years ago) (diff) |
|---|
Conimbricensis 1593
Diversae (1593), Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis e Societate Jesu In quatuor libros de coelo ECHO
Part of WO10.
Sent with DESpecs version 2.0.1
Sent: yes/2010-10-13.
Returned: 2011-02-28 raw text in trac
1. First Analysis
Difficulties
Special Instructions
Section 1:
- Marginal notes are now in section 2.6.1 of the DESpecs.
Section 2:
- The symbol "]" in the anchored comment is now "|" or ")" or "}".
- We wrote that the anchor symbol in the first text flow may have an additional ¶. In Diversae_1592 and Diversae_1593 there is never a ¶.
For example Diversae_1593, page 0349 ("res-1444-1-v_0349_341_t0"):
<pb 341><rh>DE COELO CAP. I. EXPLANATIO.</rh>
<tf 1 it>
rarum erit: at den$um quidem e$t diui$ibile, punctum
<mgl it>Tex. 11.</mgl>
autem diuidi nequit. <n p> Quod $i omne graue, molle aut du
rum e$$e nece$$e e$t, impo{$s}ibile aliquod ex h{is} inferri faci-
...
</tf>
<tf 2>
...
<p><ac p> Quod $i omne graue }</ac> H{ae}c e$t tertia ratio, qua idem confirmat. Omne graue aut
...
</p>
</tf>
Please note: All anchored comments are in text flow 2. Text flow 1 only contains the anchors of the anchored comments. An anchored comment in the text shows that the text belongs to text flow 2 and must be marked <tf 2>. Conversely, text flow 2 should consist only of anchored comments.
Marking textflows and anchored comments proved to be very difficult for Volume 1. I do not fully remember all the details, so let me just quote from an email to you from 2008-11-26:
- Text flow 1 has been marked correctly as
<tf 1>, but text flow 2 has been only partially marked. It is important that text flow 2 be consistently marked. - In the work sample only one anchored comment has been recognized. All other anchored comments have been omitted. We would appreciate your best efforts in tagging the anchored comments. In particular, we emphasize that
<ac>should be used even if the corresponding anchor in the main text is not on the same page.
2. Questions From Formax
Q
A
