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

[jnelson at law.berkeley.edu]

Opening another can of worms here - or poking another bear, etc. -
DCRM(MSS) was curious about the instruction to transcribe the Tironian
note with an ampersand and not as [et]. The latter would seem more logical
since the note is standing for [et] and not for &.

What are people's thoughts about this?

Thanks,

Jenny

> 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/>
>
>