Shakespeare Electronic Conference, Vol. 1, No. 33. Wednesday, 29 Aug 1990.
(1)   Date:   Tue, 28 Aug 90 21:01:00 EDT                    (24 lines)
      From:   This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
      Subject:  Riverside Shakespeare
(2)   Date:   Tue, 28 Aug 90 15:00:23 EDT                    (38 lines)
      From:   "Michael S. Hart" <HART@UIUCVMD>
      Subject:      Re: 1.0029  Electronic Editions  (105)
(3)   Date:   Tue, 28 Aug 90 16:03:43 EDT                     (8 lines)
      From:   "Michael S. Hart" <HART@UIUCVMD>
      Subject:      Re: SHK 1.0026  The Electronic Bard  (103)
(4)   Date:         Wed, 29 Aug 90 07:54:38 EDT              (58 lines)
      From:         Ken Steele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
      Subject:      WordCruncher Riverside Shakespeare
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:   Tue, 28 Aug 90 21:01:00 EDT
From:   This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject:  Riverside Shakespeare
Thanks for the good note. No question that most of those
errors are due to scanning, and could have been picked up
with a regular spell-checking procedure.
One item in your note bothers me: "Be sure to verify against
the printed edition first, however -- many apparent errors
originated there." Does this mean that you have another
list of errors that are in the printed edition? If so, they
also need to be corrected in the electronic version, it
seems to me. True, someone should be keeping track of such
items, since the printed edition is the starting point. But
I hope we agree that for most users, we want as correct as
possible an electronic version, even where the printed base
is in error. That's how we have approached the biblical texts
at CCAT (e.g. there are a dozen or so typos in the published
Greek Septuagint on which our text is based, and we have
corrected them, and documented the corrections). Readings
that are not clear errors, of course, are another matter.
Bob Kraft
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------60----
Date:   Tue, 28 Aug 90 15:00:23 EDT
From:   "Michael S. Hart" <HART@UIUCVMD>
Subject:      Re: 1.0029  Electronic Editions  (105)
re:  ETC Riverside vs Oxford Modern Language Edition
I have been in contact with both ETC and Oxford and have the following
to report:  ETC had expressed quite an interest in collecting errors for
correction in upcoming editions (you CAN correct them yourself if you have
WordCruncher BUT it will take a little CPU time).  ETC may also give you
a free product if they like your corrections, hence the statement that you
may wish to inform them directly of errors at 1-800-234-0546.  If you have
their floppy version, you can get a new copy with corrections at no charge.
If you have difficulty with this, please let me know.  Oxford was much less
forward about corrections, as was NeXT (who gives away the Oxford etext with
their machines).  I not only got the impression they didn't care about fixing
errors, but also that they most certainly were not about to hand out anything
to those who found them (perhaps in the vein of those who intentionally place
errors in their texts for ammunition in perceived future copyright lawsuits -
I have yet to hear of a conviction).
As far as utility goes, I am not familiar with OCP, but I have hacked out a
simple method for using the ETC.  Rather than searching so much by act/line,
I just type in the text I am looking for and watch the results.  After only
a few words, the number of possible choices is less than half a dozen, and
they can all be displayed on the screen simultaneously.  From there, the down
arrow key highlights, and c/r takes you to the full text, which can be moved
through at your leisure.  Both search methods have their values, but I can't
see why Ken wanted more than three levels in ETC, since that would do play, act
and then line.  Elaboration would possibly help.
Thank you for your interest,
Michael S. Hart, Director, Project Gutenberg
National Clearinghouse for Machine Readable Texts
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------16----
Date:   Tue, 28 Aug 90 16:03:43 EDT
From:   "Michael S. Hart" <HART@UIUCVMD>
Subject: 1.0026  The Electronic Bard  (103)
Comment:      Re: SHK 1.0026  The Electronic Bard  (103)
I spoke with ETC about correcting errors.  They told me I could, so I don't
think they have any legal objections.
Michael S. Hart
(4) --------------------------------------------------------------62----
Date:         Wed, 29 Aug 90 07:54:38 EDT
From:         Ken Steele <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject:      WordCruncher Riverside Shakespeare
A quick round-up of answers.  As Bob Kraft observes, I did suggest that
"errors" should be verified against the printed edition of the Riverside
Shakespeare.  This was primarily to guard against a problem I found
continually: apparent misspellings are often deliberate (especially
in dialect passages, see for instance the lines of Dr. Caius in *The
Merry Wives of Windsor*).  The close to 500 instances I found troublesome
were cases of illogical variant spellings, which however were deliberately
chosen by the editor of the paper edition, Blakemore Evans.  *I* would
alter them in an edition, but that would no longer be the Riverside
edition, would it?
In response to Michael Hart's question, there are many reasons for wishing
for more (non-hierarchical) tagging levels in WordCruncher.  At the
"Dynamic Text" ALLC-ICCH conference in Toronto, the WordCruncher
representatives promised some such capability for the next release of
the software (no word yet).  Rather than simply Play, Act/Scene, and Line,
it would be nice to be able to assess results on the distribution screen
by speaker, or by prose/verse distinction.  When one finds 3,000 occurrences
of the word "Love", for instance, it would be valuable to see just how
many of those are spoken by Juliet, by Romeo, or by Mercutio, for
example.  It might also be helpful in certain circumstances to be able
to ascertain automatically whether "eyen" ever occurs in Shakespeare's prose
(it doesn't, only in poetry and only in rhyming couplets as the rhyme word).
There might be additional levels one would like with the Riverside
Shakespeare; unquestionably I would like additional levels in WordCruncher
for dealing with the old-spelling Quarto and Folio texts of Shakespeare.
Here, I would like to be able to evaluate the distribution of punctuation
marks by compositor as well as Act/Scene, by signature or gathering
as well as by play.  The fact is, as WordCruncher is currently designed,
non-hierarchical divisions (like speaker, which occur randomly throughout
the text rather than all together at one location) cannot be dealt with
at all!
As for the legality of correcting one's own copy of the WordCruncher
Shakespeare, the license agreement which accompanies the diskettes states
that "You may NOT: 1. Modify any part of this text in any way, without the
prior written permission of ETC.  ... 3. Decode or otherwise reverse
engineer the encryption of the text.  4. Transfer major portions of the
text to a DOS Text File or to a printer."  This would suggest that ETC
does not consider it a legal activity to print the text to an ASCII file,
correct errors, and re-encode it with IndexETC (although this is the only
procedure I can see to correct errors in the texts).  The same document
makes it clear that it is illegal to use the texts with any software
other than WordCruncher.
It may be that all of this, and the intimidating legalese message
put on-screen at any attempt to print a large passage to disk, is
just so much empty rhetoric and that ETC does not mind error-correction.
I would not expect a public admission from the company, however.
                                             Ken Steele
                                             University of Toronto

Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.