From: David Starner (prosfilaes@gmail.com)
Date: Tue May 24 2005 - 15:01:53 CDT
On 5/24/05, Nick Nicholas <opoudjis@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> There's been some belittling of those
> scholars of such scholars in similar debates on this list and
> elsewhere (the "spoilsport" reaction I refer to on my site); but for
> all that David Starner doesn't "find the concerns of the academics
> interesting" :-( , those academics have a crucial stake in preventing
> poor encodings of their subject area,
Why? If they're never going to use it, if they're always going to
transliterate, why do they have a crucial stake in it? I'm trying to
transcribe stuff like
<http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/5/3/2/15329/15329-h/images/noteDimg.png>;
I hardly see how the fact that some scholars who aren't Elizabeth
Elstob choose to transliterate Gothic should prevent me from
accurately transcribing Elizabeth Elstob's works.
Likewise, I'm not trying to transcribe Egyptian walls; I'm trying to
transcribe the works of Budge, and his set of hieroglyphics is nice,
closed and distinct. No matter what is discovered, my needs don't
change, and I don't see why they should be subordinate to that of the
academics.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 24 2005 - 15:03:31 CDT
