conjecture-removed and an @n attribute to preceding word as lemma

[jeffreycwitt]

I ran across a use for conjecture-removed today and I'm wondering if the current guidelines are sufficient.

In the following case the scribe has "spiratio passiva activa". As I read it, "passiva" is a mistake. But the scribe provides no indication so it is a conjecture.

As I read the 1.0.0 guidelines I think the following is correct.

Option A: Current

spiratio 
<app>
  <lem type="conjecture-removed"><surplus>passiva</surplus></lem>
   <rdg wit="#L">passiva</rdg>
  </app> 
activa

But this sort of presumes I want my processor to leave "passiva" in the main text surrounded by square brackets [passiva] for example.

But if I didn't want this to appear, but I wanted to note its presence in the apparatus fontium.

This is closer to to the "variation-present" type which would have an empty lemma plus the @n attribute.

In fact, as it is now, the conjecture-removed type does not give us an @n attribute. Thus it would be hard to find the preceding word to use at the lemma.

At a bare minimum, I think I'd like to see the @n attribute REQUIRED on conjecture-removed types.

Something like the following:

Option B

spiratio 
<app>
  <lem n="spiratio" type="conjecture-removed"><surplus>passiva</surplus></lem>
   <rdg wit="#L">passiva</rdg>
  </app> 
activa

This would give the processor more options.

But I could also see the following working

Option C

spiratio 
<app>
  <lem n="spiratio" type="conjecture-removed"/>
   <rdg wit="#L">passiva</rdg>
  </app> 
activa

where conjecture-removed tells us the choice to not put in a word in this token position is a conjecture since all of the other manuscripts have a word here. One can then see rdg elements below for the options contained in the ms.

At present I think I would vote for Option B, even if the element is a bit redundant.