Stephen Carlson wrote:In my dead tree edition, entries for which the supplement has additional material are indicated in the main body of the lexicon with an added circle-star. This is clearly something that they added to the plates or something, so that they did not have to retypeset the whole thing.
That must be a recent innovation. I went through my copy (long since given away) with a pencil and wrote the supplement material in.
But yes, it is a very good practice to pencil in supplements and corrigenda into updated editions. Many scholars do not, to their occasional embarrassment.
I realise it is an gargantuanly large undertaking, but if (as it is the case) only less-than-best texts can be digitalised and presented, then the situation would be slightly better if the places where the text or reference work in a particular (out of copyright) edition had been supersceded, or contains corrections could be marked, with a reference to the newer print edition.
Digitalising, then would not be simply an input of texts, but also a semi-editing (checking against the best available) and marking where there were shortcomings.
I conceive of that as what one would like indicated when buying a second-hand car. If there were a list of defects, worn parts and missing things (compared to a new car of the same model) then sellers (here digitisers) would bear some of the responsibility of caveat emptor (or here caveat scholar). Staying within this analogy, I am not suggesting that reference works be cross-referenced to each other neccessarily (eg. this model never had power windows - so it would be strange to mark for a second-hand car that the power windows were not there). Such a comparision between reference works would be something beyond digitising - it would be applying a value judgement to a work - the work of a critic not a digitiser.
Adding an indication that an authour (or publisher) later made an addtion or correction, is faithfully indicating that the original authour themself has made a value judgement about their work, and I think that is a reasonable inclusion for a digitaliser.
For LSJ, biblicalhumanities.org will almost certainly use whatever Perseus provides, without modification. Someone is already responsible for LSJ, nobody is doing these other resources.
I do like the idea of enhancing resources, but the first task is simply to record what is in the printed work.
Jonathan Robie wrote:For LSJ, biblicalhumanities.org will almost certainly use whatever Perseus provides, without modification. Someone is already responsible for LSJ, nobody is doing these other resources.
These comments could be taken as advice for Perseus and consequently biblicalhumanities.com then - The header for this thread contains a double invitation.
Is there a way I could get a hold of your adapted version of greektranscoder? I'm working on converting AT Robertson's for theWORD software which is at theword.net
"I converted AT Robertson's from this font by adapting the GreekTranscoder (an Excel template module) http://greektranscoder.org/ utility to transcode greekth/hebrewth into unicode. This utility could be used to transform any of his documents into unicode MSWord documents all those documents listed in his bib."
Would it be possible to get your adapted version of GreekTranscoder?