[DCRM-L] "[the]" versus "[th]e" (but definitely not "ye")

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Your solution is a good one for DCRM(G).

I would argue that transcription as "[the]" is consistent with other brevigraphs in which an identifiable letter is modified in some way to form the symbol. That is, we're considering the whole thing to be a symbol, with square brackets around the expanded symbol. Cf. quo, quod, recta, pri, que, hoc, &c.

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Erin Blake
Sent: Thursday, 25 July 2013 16:55
To: DCRM-L (dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu)
Subject: [DCRM-L] "[the]" versus "[th]e" (but definitely not "ye")

At the risk of opening a can of worms, poking a bear, etc., what’s the reason behind DCRM’s Appendix G instruction to use “[the]” and “[that]” rather than “[th]e” and “[th]t”?  Or, alternatively, “[th][a]t” (one set of brackets for the early contraction, another for the supplied letter).

It doesn’t follow the pattern of the rest of the table (where the square-bracketed letters from column 2 are exactly the same as the square bracketed letters in column 4). It also doesn’t follow what I’ve seen of early modern manuscript transcription practices, where it would be either “ye” and “yt” or “[th]e” and “[th]t.” (And I do understand why DCRM doesn’t use “ye”)

Little-y-with-a-teeny-e-on-top continued in handwriting longer than in letterpress, so it comes up a lot in transcribed titles and imprints for etchings and engravings. Several close-readers of DCRM(G), including some who are experienced rare book catalogers, thought a missing word was being supplied when reading “sold by all [the] book & printsellers in London” or “Miss - in the actual dress as she appear'd in [the] character of Iphigenia, at [the] Jubiliee Ball or Masquerade at Ranelagh.”

To avoid confusion in DCRM(G), each example with “[the]” has the comment underneath, ““[the]” replaces the brevigraph “yͤ” on the material.” (If your e-mail client has a full understanding of Unicode, the thing after “brevigraph” should be a “Latin small letter y” plus Unicode 0364, a "combining Latin small letter e" from the Medieval Superscript Letter Diacritics section of  Combining Diacritical Marks, see http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0300.pdf).

7B4.2 says we can add “explanations of cataloger-supplied letters or words” in a note, if considered important, so DCRM(G) gives the example “Brevigraph sometimes incorrectly rendered "ye" expanded as [the].”

Is there any chance that the next iteration of DCRM will reconsider “[th]e” for internal consistency and user convenience?

Thanks for letting me vent.

   Erin.

--------------------------------------------------
Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Curator of Art & Special Collections  |  Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE  |  Washington, DC 20003-1004  |  office tel. +1 (202) 675-0323  |  fax: +1 (202) 675-0328  |  eblake at folger.edu<mailto:eblake at folger.edu>  |  www.folger.edu<http://www.folger.edu/> |  collation.folger.edu<http://collation.folger.edu/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20130821/ce42b34c/attachment-0001.html>