3 ms·

A warning: these books are not the original editions, but edited versions with modernized spelling and grammar. The editorial changes are kept in version contro

by mrob 8y ago

A warning: these books are not the original editions, but edited versions with modernized spelling and grammar. The editorial changes are kept in version control so they could theoretically be reverted, but they are mixed with the technical changes so in practice this is not easy. Some people might prefer the changes, but when I read classics I want to read something as close as possible to what the author originally wrote. Despite the name, "Standard Ebooks" are actually non-standard.

acabal 8y ago
To clarify, SE does not modernize grammar. 99% of the (very light) modernization we do is one-to-one spelling changes for wildly archaic spellings like "shew -> show" or "swop -> swap" or "to-night -> tonight". Grammar is left alone. Whether or not you prefer slightly modernized spelling is a matter of taste, and something I've discussed at length in previous HN comments. (So I won't repeat myself here.) At SE we take the same stance as editors going back generations, who have all been quietly modernizing spelling right under everyone's noses as a matter of course since Shakespeare's days.
- mrob 8y ago
  From Wikipedia's "grammar" article: "Outside linguistics, the term grammar is often used in a rather different sense. In some respects, it may be used more broadly, including rules of spelling and punctuation, which linguists would not typically consider to form part of grammar, but rather as a part of orthography, the set of conventions used for writing a language." In common usage, punctuation is often considered part of grammar. This matches well with the computer science meaning of grammar (rules for parsing), because punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence.
  - acabal 8y ago
    Of course. We do not change punctuation, with a few exceptions for some short-lived archaic constructs like comma-emdash. We do change from single-quoted British style to double-quoted American style, but I think most everyone would agree that that is merely a presentational change that does not change the actual grammar of a sentence. (And that in and of itself was a very common thing for editors to do going back hundreds of years too!)
    - jjgreen 8y ago
      That seems an odd thing to want to change. Do you also move proximal punctuation inside the quotes, AE-style?
- Brakenshire 8y ago
  Doing something like this has the advantage of reducing the distance between reader and the translator or the author, but at the same time removes context. If it’s a high Victorian translation of a Greek text, what you’re reading is from ancient Greece, but given a Victorian cast, with all the ideological implications that brings with it. I’d rather you didn’t remove that context, but I can see why you’d do it. Fantastic project, anyway.
robin_reala 8y ago
‘Standard’ as in a standard imprint. The typical argument is that any print edition beyond the first is altered, especially with punctuation, according to the whims of the day. Even the first edition is rarely what the author originally wrote, having had a multitude of spelling corrections and changes from the original MS. But yes, we do do this (sympathetically to my mind), and yes, it’s all marked as editorial in the commit history. It’s not trivial to untangle, but it’s not impossible by any means. We also list the sources used to build the books which include the transcriptions and scans if you want to find the unaltered versions. (for what it’s worth, by far the most common adjustments are to-day to today, to-morrow to tomorrow, and good-night to good night)
- jgtrosh 8y ago
  I really enjoy SE, and I just found out about these corrections. Not really sure what to think about them but for trivial things like to-day I don't really see the point of correcting it since it's obvious to understand and gives some free authenticity. Just my 2¢; thanks for the project as a whole.

by mrob 8y ago

acabal 8y ago

To clarify, SE does not modernize grammar. 99% of the (very light) modernization we do is one-to-one spelling changes for wildly archaic spellings like "shew -> show" or "swop -> swap" or "to-night -> tonight". Grammar is left alone. Whether or not you prefer slightly modernized spelling is a matter of taste, and something I've discussed at length in previous HN comments. (So I won't repeat myself here.) At SE we take the same stance as editors going back generations, who have all been quietly modernizing spelling right under everyone's noses as a matter of course since Shakespeare's days.

mrob 8y ago
From Wikipedia's "grammar" article: "Outside linguistics, the term grammar is often used in a rather different sense. In some respects, it may be used more broadly, including rules of spelling and punctuation, which linguists would not typically consider to form part of grammar, but rather as a part of orthography, the set of conventions used for writing a language." In common usage, punctuation is often considered part of grammar. This matches well with the computer science meaning of grammar (rules for parsing), because punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence.
- acabal 8y ago
  Of course. We do not change punctuation, with a few exceptions for some short-lived archaic constructs like comma-emdash. We do change from single-quoted British style to double-quoted American style, but I think most everyone would agree that that is merely a presentational change that does not change the actual grammar of a sentence. (And that in and of itself was a very common thing for editors to do going back hundreds of years too!)
  - jjgreen 8y ago
    That seems an odd thing to want to change. Do you also move proximal punctuation inside the quotes, AE-style?
Brakenshire 8y ago
Doing something like this has the advantage of reducing the distance between reader and the translator or the author, but at the same time removes context. If it’s a high Victorian translation of a Greek text, what you’re reading is from ancient Greece, but given a Victorian cast, with all the ideological implications that brings with it. I’d rather you didn’t remove that context, but I can see why you’d do it. Fantastic project, anyway.

robin_reala 8y ago

‘Standard’ as in a standard imprint. The typical argument is that any print edition beyond the first is altered, especially with punctuation, according to the whims of the day. Even the first edition is rarely what the author originally wrote, having had a multitude of spelling corrections and changes from the original MS. But yes, we do do this (sympathetically to my mind), and yes, it’s all marked as editorial in the commit history. It’s not trivial to untangle, but it’s not impossible by any means. We also list the sources used to build the books which include the transcriptions and scans if you want to find the unaltered versions. (for what it’s worth, by far the most common adjustments are to-day to today, to-morrow to tomorrow, and good-night to good night)

jgtrosh 8y ago
I really enjoy SE, and I just found out about these corrections. Not really sure what to think about them but for trivial things like to-day I don't really see the point of correcting it since it's obvious to understand and gives some free authenticity. Just my 2¢; thanks for the project as a whole.