Re: Simple alternation

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Magdalena Turska <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> If, alas, the aim of the TEI encoding is to capture that ur-source then,
> yes, <unclear> might have a place there. Such a reconstruction feels odd
> though and in my opinion calls for some careful policy and documentation at
> least.
>

I don't think this is about reconstructing a supposed "ur-source", rather
it seems to me that Paul is translating editorial markup from the original
document he showed us into TEI markup. The question marks in the original
document indicate uncertainty, not variance.

I would lean towards an econding that is closer to what I see in the
original document:

<choice>
   <unclear>m</unclear>
   <unclear>w</unclear>
</choice>euyn

but as Poitr has pointed out, it may be more useful to indicate the lemmas
separately, depending on what the encoding is for.

Raff