-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
GRA VN data "integration" into main text #28
Comments
Not so important matter to bother about, but I feel the delete category should also be started with no. 1, as the change and addition categories. The print has the three categories clearly separated, so the delete section numbers should not be in continuation of the change section numbers. |
if @funderburkjim agrees to have the "del" numbers changed to 1–92 instead of 273–364, I will update my full file as well as the vn5 file accordingly for his revised displays. |
GRA VN chg corrections:
See the translated texts-- ádabdha-dhīti,¦ a., {%reingesinnt Führung%} [nītí] {%gewährend, sicher führend%}. |
With the above mentioned differences [more such are present in gra_9], I hope the reason behind my earlier post at #21 (comment) might be understood well. Now, I won't be posting more on the topic, but will just continue to incorporate the corrections in my file. |
Noticed some error having crept in gra_9. The HW vfj [ID=8351] of the orig. file has first (main) para that runs into 19 lines (on web display), while the same in the rev. file has first (main) para that runs into 32 lines!! The rev. file has duplicated a big text block from the first portion, and has applied the |
Courtesy the hardwork put in by Jim in marking the changes (which I had taken as a starting ref.), I had finished incorporating the changes in the whole file now. |
GRA VN add corrections:Now, I am thinking of integrating the additions as well into the main file, in a similar fashion as the deletions and changes. This being the largest portion in the GRA VN, it would require a much longer time to finish. @funderburkjim I framed it to be similar to the other two types you have used-- Hope to get your response at least on this point. |
One important point to be kept in mind while adding the VN add portions to the main text--
Thus, the * has a different purpose in the main text (indicating that the word or word-form does not occur in the RV) and the VN text (indicating that the word or word-form does not occur in the main text). So the * (in VN) has to be removed while inserting the VN add portions within the resp. main text data. |
Dear @Andhrabharati I bow to your dedication to Sanskrit lexicography and how team-work friendly you've become. |
Agree. I erroneously marked 'a' lines. BTW, it is page 528. |
Yes, my mistake in commenting here; but not in the actual work! |
Agree. The purpose of the number is to 'tie' (a) the text |
Regarding If you do provide such markup, your form looks reasonable. However, it is not clear to me that such markup should be added. In this example, the 'vn add 1 gra' record (L=12001) seems adequate. So my current opinion is that there does NOT need to be any additional markup for the Nachtrage. |
Your use of the '1976' edition is proving quite useful in improving the markup, in this example and others. |
Are there any other concerns where you need my response now? |
My view is that the add corrections should also be done in-line, as were the del and chg corrections. This would at once shows the place where the correction is present, instead of the user looking at the L-12xxx display at the bottom and then put his mind to properly position the correction in the above matter. When there are multiple additions like at entry agni, you could appreciate the point much better, where the user would otherwise have to "traverse" up and down multiple times to see the correction places, and more often than not one would definitely miss some of them!! Also the VN data would be more visible if it is also split as the main text, see how I did them taking the same agni example--
|
However, if you are "happy" with the add corrections left un-integrated, it would save me few days' time!! |
Here's a possible 'intermediate' idea for 'add' markup. This markup could be placed in the body text at the end of relevant sections. Such markup
What do you think? |
Yes, it would reduce the markup time drastically; but it has some drawbacks/shortcomings still!! |
To avoid too much cluttering the text with the chg tags spread all through the matter, I would like suggest a different solution--
[This improves the readability of the file also, for people like me, though it is only once in a while activity.] The display code can take care of the rest!! And just put the VN change files (probably retaining the chg numbers) at the bottom, as they are already 'linked' to the resp. entry word. What do you think of this, @funderburkjim ? |
I need to see example(s). |
The in-line VN change matter could be as simple as-- ●XXX● ;;del & old matter XXX |
del example:
add & chg example:
|
Have you already implemented (with corrections) the 'changes' and 'deletions' marked in the text as in gra9 ?
Or is this yet to be done in your file? |
I did both of them yesterday itself #28 (comment) and now preparing to do the VN add matter.
And you may notice and also your vn6_add_1.txt
against my vn6_add_AB.txt
I have taken the metalines from your (non-proofed) vn6 file and put them in my proofed and formatted AB file. |
Ok. Let's just leave the chg/del as you have done. I think this works well. As for the adds, let's just leave NO markup in the body text. |
With the VN material integrated into your version, is your version done? |
I'll be away from my desk for a while. |
I did not understand this!!
|
I am awaiting the abbr. conclusion/resolving, if the VN add is not to be done. |
I am retiring for the day (it's past midnight, 1:20 AM, for me) now. |
I meant:
|
Good decision, @funderburkjim ! The only reason I could think of behind this is your reluctance/resistance/inertia/... (and what else!) of changing something that you have already developed, unless some good amount of persuasion is put in by the other person; but, be it so as I already gave my word for it #28 (comment); you'll get the data without the add changes [but as I had already initiated the process at my end, I will finish the add insertions also and keep aside a separate file, who knows— one might need it someday!] And do you want my vn6 file (proofed & formatted in the style of the main text), or you'd like to continue with what you have done 'on your own'? |
I just did some minimal adjustments & checks on my GRA file today; and I did not touch the del numbers (though you had agreed in principle for doing it). Now the baton could be back to you anytime, once the reported abbr. entities are resolved. |
Here are my vn3.2 (VN add) files-- and vn3.3 (VN index) portion-- |
I'm going to work on user corrections (3 month backlog!). When that is done, I will be ready to begin work with your version of Grassman. Probably two or three days. |
This is a matter where my communication was not clear. I like the idea of changing the 'del' numbers starting with '1'. |
Yes |
Good idea to do this while the details are fresh in your mind. |
You were quite clear in what you said; I was only saying that I did not do the work, though you had 'agreed' for (my doing) the point!! Now I have changed them to 1–93 (there was a number with 'a' at the end [341a]; so the count is not 92, but 93). I have also added a space between the decimal point and the following number (when it is in the sequence list), which is the standard German style. |
I am seeing that the user corrections are inclusive of GRA; so, most probably you have to repeat those again, when my version is taken up [and using the |
I started adding them with {A…A} marking (without the add number!), similar to the bold {@…@} and italics {%…%} tagging! |
GRA VN del corrections:
<d 325> <p>528,29. 30.b: *
, which clearly mentions the deletion to be in 529-b, lines 29 & 30.Here are the lines in corrected (new) and Jim's (old) versions:
new
<div n="TS">-ri [<ab>3. s.</ab> <ab>me.</ab>] medial: {@prá@} 4) {119,6}; <ab>pass.</ab>: {@prá@} 4) {308,6}; {805,5}; {885,1}; {952,8}. — {@ví@} 4) {970,5. 6} (váyas, ā́yus).
new
<chg type="del" n="325" src="gra"><old><div n="TS">-rīmahi [<ab>Opt.</ab>] {@prá@} 6) {214,10}.</old></chg>
old
<div n="TS">-ri [<ab>3. s.</ab> <ab>me.</ab>] medial: {@prá@} 4) {119,6}; <ab>pass.</ab>: <chg type="del" n="325" src="gra"><old>{@prá@} 4) {308,6}; {805,5}; {885,1}; {952,8}.</old></chg> — {@ví@} 4) {970,5. 6} (váyas, ā́yus).
old
<div n="TS">-rīmahi [<ab>Opt.</ab>] {@prá@} 6) {214,10}.
And the same can be seen properly applied in the "corrected re-print" of Grassmann (1976 ed. & 1996 rev. ed.)
In my version now, I had properly marked all the deletions in the "new style" proposed by Jim.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: