Opinions Solicited

[brokaw at BUFFALO.EDU]

But Mark, a paleographic transcription (revealing to the extent
possible the nature of the original document) is also valuable because
it makes it easier to identify possible mistakes in the regularized
transcription and the translation. the point is that the regularized
transcription is often a result of some interpretation. and often there
are other possible interpretations. we have recently had discussions
about this very thing on the list. and remember those documents we
worked on at Indiana with Joe, we had long discussions/arguments about
the meaning of words or phrases precisely because there were different
possible interpretations of the orthography and even spacing (i.e. in
dios versus indios). so, i think Barry, Stafford, and Louise{s method
is the best both for the sake of historical linguistics and in order to
leave open the possibility for others to disagree with your
orthographic/semantic interpretations.
Galen


Quoting Mark David Morris <mdmorris at INDIANA.EDU>:

> I, on the other hand, do not see the cause to publish a "near
> original"
> transcription.  The transcription itself is a significant step away
> from
> the original and a certain degree of analysis would be merited with
> it,
> such as proper word separation and extension of abbreviations.  There
> is
> something special about first-hand exposure to a text, but this is
> only
> conveyed by the original or a facsimile; a transcription can't
> capture all
> of the nuances.  Thank you very much Fran Kartunnen for glossing
> hueliyoh
> etc. As for the other, my assumption is that xoxopehualiztli refers
> to
> spring.
>
> best,
> Mark Morris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~
>
> La muerte tiene permiso a todo
>
> MDM, PhD Candidate
> Dept. of History, Indiana Univ.
>
>