If 'ff' is transcibed 'F', and I'm not debating that it shouldn't, then consistency in the rule (of using the symbol that was intended by the writer) gets a bit murky. I don't feel that a style manual designed for the Public Records Office, or British Library, should be necessary for less lofty publications. Otherwise, special typewriter/computer keyboards/fonts would be needed for minutiae not noticeable to most readers. In this respect, 19th century scholarly productions must have exasperated typesetters working with a vast array of tiny font symbols. Ideally, I suppose, ff should, as a capital, be F. u and v, i and j, should be as used. Long s should be the actual symbol, like an f, but with only half the cross-bar. Ligatures such as oe, ae, ct, should be copied as is. Smaller font should be used for superscript abbreviations. Thorn should be used in 'ye' etc, and the other anglo-saxon letters used appropriately. 'W' should not be used where the original print has 'VV'. 'viij' strictly needs a long 'i', not i or j. Deletions should be printed in crossed-out form, underscoring respected, as also textual lacunae, marginal script, italics, capitalisation, etc. Tildes copied over words such as aia (anima, spirit). Spelling errors copied with or without [sic]. And much more. But all this would reduce work to a standstill. The best compromise is a short prefatory note explaining the rules that have been employed. Else we land up with the kind of vanity press productions of the leisurely and wealthy. I would include the first edition of OED in this class; besides considerable use of anglo-saxon, words are transcribed in umpteen alphabets - Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, etc - where 'necessary', never transliterated. And such works as "Two Early English Versions of the Gesta Romanorum", a large book printed in a tiny edition by and for the Roxburgh Club in 1838. I also recall reading in a questions section of a ca 1917 Mechanics Institute magazine a submitter complaining to the editor that he had incorrectly printed a Greek motto; with the latter's comment that it would be appreciated if correspondents refrained from quoting passages in non-Latin alphabets, since it was time-consuming for the proof-readers. Exact transcription is a lot of work, and only rarely worthwhile in terms of avoiding error. (Perhaps the classic one is Theobald's transliteration of 'j' as 'i' in the Shakespeare 4th folio, reverting to the spelling in the earlier folios, and causing the Spaniard in Othello to become 'Iago' instead of the intended 'Jago'). John Barton

In message <[email protected]>, John Barton <[email protected]> writes >If 'ff' is transcibed 'F', and I'm not debating that it shouldn't, then >consistency in the rule (of using the symbol that was intended by the writer) >gets a bit murky. I don't feel that a style manual designed for the Public >Records Office, or British Library, should be necessary for less lofty >publications. Otherwise, special typewriter/computer keyboards/fonts would be >needed for minutiae not noticeable to most readers. In this respect, 19th >century scholarly productions must have exasperated typesetters working with a >vast array of tiny font symbols. >Ideally, I suppose, >ff should, as a capital, be F. >u and v, i and j, should be as used. >Long s should be the actual symbol, like an f, but with only half the cross-bar. >Ligatures such as oe, ae, ct, should be copied as is. >Smaller font should be used for superscript abbreviations. >Thorn should be used in 'ye' etc, and the other anglo-saxon letters used >appropriately. >'W' should not be used where the original print has 'VV'. >'viij' strictly needs a long 'i', not i or j. >Deletions should be printed in crossed-out form, underscoring respected, as also >textual lacunae, marginal script, italics, capitalisation, etc. >Tildes copied over words such as aia (anima, spirit). >Spelling errors copied with or without [sic]. And much more. > >But all this would reduce work to a standstill. The best compromise is a short >prefatory note explaining the rules that have been employed. This is a very good point - if a transcription has been made for the purpose of making a manuscript more intelligible to the ordinary reader, then it is important not to obscure that intention with pedantic clutter. The explanation in an introduction is useful, then common sense takes over. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Eve, John, Couldn't agree more. Regards, Martyn ----- Original Message ---- From: Eve McLaughlin <[email protected]> To: OLD-[email protected] Sent: Saturday, 29 July, 2006 3:18:23 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Transcriptions of old hands In message <[email protected]>, John Barton <[email protected]> writes >If 'ff' is transcibed 'F', and I'm not debating that it shouldn't, then >consistency in the rule (of using the symbol that was intended by the writer) >gets a bit murky. I don't feel that a style manual designed for the Public >Records Office, or British Library, should be necessary for less lofty >publications. Otherwise, special typewriter/computer keyboards/fonts would be >needed for minutiae not noticeable to most readers. In this respect, 19th >century scholarly productions must have exasperated typesetters working with a >vast array of tiny font symbols. >Ideally, I suppose, >ff should, as a capital, be F. >u and v, i and j, should be as used. >Long s should be the actual symbol, like an f, but with only half the cross-bar. >Ligatures such as oe, ae, ct, should be copied as is. >Smaller font should be used for superscript abbreviations. >Thorn should be used in 'ye' etc, and the other anglo-saxon letters used >appropriately. >'W' should not be used where the original print has 'VV'. >'viij' strictly needs a long 'i', not i or j. >Deletions should be printed in crossed-out form, underscoring respected, as also >textual lacunae, marginal script, italics, capitalisation, etc. >Tildes copied over words such as aia (anima, spirit). >Spelling errors copied with or without [sic]. And much more. > >But all this would reduce work to a standstill. The best compromise is a short >prefatory note explaining the rules that have been employed. This is a very good point - if a transcription has been made for the purpose of making a manuscript more intelligible to the ordinary reader, then it is important not to obscure that intention with pedantic clutter. The explanation in an introduction is useful, then common sense takes over. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

To Admin I cant find the rootsweb link page for subscribing and unsubscribing you were listed under miscanlaneous but have vanished Chris Glass