Latin transcription COMPLETED

[grantleydawn]

I am trying to transcribe Latin text into my database, using the standard computer keyboard. It will be for others to read. Is there an acceptable way of presenting the following (as an example)?

I understand what it is saying, but my interpretation is not the issue. I just don’t know how to type it into my database, for others to interpret their way.

My crude attempt would be.
Joh’s fili’ Gilleb’ti. Om’ibz hanc carta’ audientibz Francigenis
7 Anglicis sal’. Sciatis q’d dedi Hugoni de Raeleia terra’ mea’ de
Netelcumba illi 7 heredibz suis in foeudo 7 hereditate ad tenendu’
de me 7 heredibz meis videlicet p’ servitio uni’ militis. tali
divisione q’d si werra est. inveniet mi unu’ milite’ p’curatu’ II.obz

Regards
Grantley

[PrueM]

Hi Grantley

It might be useful to download a special font that has the abbreviated and special characters in it -  one that I found is called "Alphabetum" http://guindo.pntic.mec.es/~jmag0042/alphaeng.html

It costs money but if you are doing a fair bit of transcription it might be worth your while.

Cheers
Prue

[grantleydawn]

Thankyou Prue,

I am not sure that is the path I want to go down. Following your lead, I found a free font called ‘Junicode’, that could be worth exploring.

I think, what I am after is a simple way to key the printed Medieaval Latin, so that I can support my research. I don’t need to replicate it exactly.

My real problem is that, in one case, I disagree with a research result of John Collinson & J L Vivian and I want to put my case.

And beside, my Latin needs a lot to be desired. Anyone who has learnt Latin surely cringes when I attempt a transcription/translation.

Regards
Grantley

[Billyblue]

Rather you than me - I've forgotten most of my Latin.  However...

The first word is Jon not Joh.   And towards the end, there are a couple of words with superscript endings which you haven't noted.

You definitely need some sort of specialist font so that the straight lines above letters, and the squiggly ones don't all look the same, as they must mean something different.
A few of these letters are available under symbols in Word (insert) if you are using that, but it's a bit fiddly that way when there are a lot of them. 

Dawn M

[Alexander.]

The first word is Jon not Joh.   And towards the end, there are a couple of words with superscript endings which you haven't noted.

I'm pretty sure that Grantley is right - it's Joh[anne]s (Latin for John).

Anyway, I've also wondered in texts how they get all these strange symbols, as I was trying to copy an old text into Word and found that most of the symbols were not there.

However, I think the way you have done it is completely faithful to the original, since you indicate where the omitted letters are using an apostrophe, rather than the macron (or whatever other squiggle was used). The strange letters are mostly used for abbreviating words, so as long as you make it clear where the omitted letters are, I think it is fine.

Alexander

[Roger in Sussex]

One solution might be to use your readings in square brackets, and refer your readers to an authoritative list which gives meanings for most of the abbreviations of letters one is likely to come across when deciphering old documents.

Such a list is contained in the preface to "The Record Interpreter" compiled by Charles Trice Martin, the second edition of which was published in 1910. A facsimile of this book was published by Kohler & Coombes of Dorking, SURREY, England in 1976. I don't know if this is still in print (probably not!), but is likely to available in academic or large city libraries.

One problem with this, however, is that some of the original symbols had several different possible meanings. A common example is lower case p with a stroke across its descender. This usually means per, but can also mean par or por.

Just a suggestion, for what its worth. APOLOGY - Have just realised that Dorking is in Surrey, not West Sussex
Roger

[grantleydawn]

Thankyou Dawn, Alexander & Roger,

I now realise that I was trying to do something that I should not have been trying to do. If I can’t reproduce it exactly, then I should just refer to the original & put in my interpretation.

The 1892 version of "The Record Interpreter" by Charles Trice Martin is available at http://archive.org/details/recordinterprete00martiala and it appears like it will become my new best friend. Or, it might just get me into a lot more trouble.

Thanks, again
Grantley

[Alexander.]

Thanks for the link to that book, Grantley. It's the Latin abbreviations that really do me in, and it looks like that book has an excellent list. Definitely one to bookmark!

[Roger in Sussex]

I have realised that Martin's book was republished in Surrey, not West Sussex. Sorry if I have caused any problems.

Roger