![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 1992: Rs: Assorted Queries
From: Hardy M. Cook (hmcook@boe00.minc.umd.edu) Date: 09/07/92
Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 3, No. 214. Monday, 7 September 1992. (1) From: Barry Rountree <WCONDEE@OUACCVMB> Date: September 6, 1992, 14:20:44 EST Subj: [OTA Quartos and Folios] (2) From: Jay L Halio <jhalio@brahms.udel.edu> Date: Monday, September 7, 1992, 11:06:34 -0400 Subj: Re: SHK 3.0210 Assorted Queries (More Cheap Advice) (1)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barry Roundtree <WCONDEE@OUACCVMB> Date: September 6, 1992, 14:20:44 EST Subject: [OTA Quartos and Folios] It's been a while ago, but I used the *Richard III* Q1 from the Oxford Text Archives to check my own transcription of the quarto. There were several errors in tagging, esp. concerning marginalia (word-wrap). Also, there are variations within the printing of a quarto, along with variations from printing to printing, and these were either not noted or included without comment. If you're trying to give students the feel for how quartos/folios read and don't want to go to the expense of xeroxing, I think they're wonderful. For building a rehersal text, they're even better. If you want to build vocabulary lists by character/scene/whatever, I'd check through it first to see if all the end tags are where they are supposed to be. For comparison to another transcription to check for accuracy, they are more than adequate and perhaps unique in their portability. In short, they're not authoritative (but neither is a facsimile, so why am I complaining?), and they've got enough errors to make me nervous feeding them into a parser straight off the network, but they are still incredibly useful. Barry Rountree Ohio University (2)-------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jay L Halio <jhalio@brahms.udel.edu> Date: Monday, September 7, 1992, 11:06:34 -0400 Subject: 3.0210 Assorted Queries (More Cheap Advice) Comment: Re: SHK 3.0210 Assorted Queries (More Cheap Advice) To: Kevin Berland re: single vol Shakespeares By all means have a look at the New Cambridge Shakespeare editions and the single volume Oxfords as they appear. The paperback volumes are reasonably priced and sturdy enough, but the hardback ones (intended mainly for libraries) are much more expensive. The print is even better than the Ardens, and the format similar, i.e. text in large type, collation in small type, commentary in a typeface that is clear and larger than the collation. Good introductions, too. Jay Halio
|
|
|||||