03-03-2017, 01:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2017, 01:47 PM by Diane.
Edit Reason: shorten
)
Just a note to any members who might be confused about terminology.
A comment made about this event, in comments made below Pelling's blogpost at ciphermysteries, suggests that in using the word "stemmae" Alexandra Marraccini is displaying ignorance of some sort - presumably of codicological terms.
The comment itself is incorrect. We're not talking about classical purism here, but how words are used in practice, in descriptions of medieval manuscripts.
A random example from something online, as illustration. This from Fordham University's Online Medieval Sources Bibliography, where the abstract to one specialist publication contains the following...
The comment to Pelling's blog asserted that the word which should have been used was 'stemmata' - which is certainly a real word - see e.g.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I have seen both usages, though 'stemmae' is a little more often seen in American than in European papers.
But the point is that 'stemmae' is not wrong. Nor is Marraccini wrong in using it.
I am a little surprised that anyone with even a passing interest in medieval studies and/or Beinecke MS 408 should have such a narrow range of reading that they had not encountered this usage before.
A comment made about this event, in comments made below Pelling's blogpost at ciphermysteries, suggests that in using the word "stemmae" Alexandra Marraccini is displaying ignorance of some sort - presumably of codicological terms.
The comment itself is incorrect. We're not talking about classical purism here, but how words are used in practice, in descriptions of medieval manuscripts.
A random example from something online, as illustration. This from Fordham University's Online Medieval Sources Bibliography, where the abstract to one specialist publication contains the following...
Quote:... South then describes the surviving manuscripts and compares their texts. He discusses possible stemmae and dates of composition. South also summarizes previous scholarship about the Historia de Sancto Cuthberto and describes his editorial method..
The comment to Pelling's blog asserted that the word which should have been used was 'stemmata' - which is certainly a real word - see e.g.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
I have seen both usages, though 'stemmae' is a little more often seen in American than in European papers.
But the point is that 'stemmae' is not wrong. Nor is Marraccini wrong in using it.
I am a little surprised that anyone with even a passing interest in medieval studies and/or Beinecke MS 408 should have such a narrow range of reading that they had not encountered this usage before.
