resp. Sufficiebat nobis - typos about nocturnale-romanum HOT 12 CLOSED

https://nocturnale.marteo.fr/ is still in preliminary development. A "clone this proposal into mine" feature is on the roadmap.

The "sandhofe" proposals on https://nocturnale.marteo.fr/ are imports from Gregobase (scripted but not cron'd, done more or less monthly) - the cross-table between the "Hudelmaier code" (09H3N2R1 in this example) and the Gregobase chant_id is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o5Y3dil_2c8xRLG8awUvMuJYTmPRwgIdt0jvM_3r-94/

Therefore, errors in "sandhofe" proposals should be fixed in Gregobase, in this instance: https://gregobase.selapa.net/chant.php?id=15381

I really should document this whole thing. I'll try and do it some time this week.

from nocturnale-romanum.

Therefore, errors in "sandhofe" proposals should be fixed in Gregobase

Great, thanks, will do so.

from nocturnale-romanum.

On a side note, in this particular instance, Rob Leduc who transcribed the score deems this to be a typo in Sandhofe according to his own Breviary
=> the text should be checked against a typica because apparently the two versions exist.

from nocturnale-romanum.

"nobi" is not a word and the rest makes no sense syntactically.

The Nova et Vetera breviary (volume 2, p. 237), which is, of course, no editio typica and is known to be plagued by typos quite a lot, has

Sufficiébat nobis paupértas nostra, ut divítiae computaréntur

(which is OK grammar-wise). The same reading is in this random 17th c. edition from Google Books as well as this 1902 one.
Unfortunately I don't own any particularly authoritative breviary edition, nor am I aware of one being available online. I could check in a university library (which has the Monumenta Liturgica Piana reprints of typical editions), but I'm not visiting it any soon.

from nocturnale-romanum.

Yes, "nobi" was clearly a typo but I think "divitiae" is correct.
On a side note, do you think the website should handle the text separately from the music (i.e. have a "text" field for each chant instead of just a bunch of GABC proposals), and check the conformity of proposals to the text?
In both cases, what would be the right way for people to report typos in the text? I like GitHub tickets, but not everyone has an account. I am not keen on implementing yet another ticket system on the website but it might come to that.

from nocturnale-romanum.

On a side note, do you think the website should handle the text separately from the music (i.e. have a "text" field for each chant instead of just a bunch of GABC proposals), and check the conformity of proposals to the text?

While such an approach may make sense in case of fixing mere typos, I find it risky. The connection between music and lyrics in Gregorian chant is (not always, but often) intimate, reliably "checking the conformity of [music] proposals to the text" in a fully automated way is non-trivial (if possible at all) and a possibility to edit the text on its own may easily lead to breaking the intimate connection between music and lyrics without anyone noticing.

Also, it's very probable that there will be cases of chants where different proposals will have slightly (or less slightly) different lyrics and where the editorial decision will be not only "take tune A or tune B", but also "take an ancient tune at the cost of lyrics diverging from the breviary, or take (or compose/adjust) a newer one, matching the text of the post-Tridentine typical editions?"

In both cases, what would be the right way for people to report typos in the text? I like GitHub tickets, but not everyone has an account.

Github accounts are free and easy to create, so I don't see any issue there. Many non-developers have signed up on Github just in order to be able to report issues for https://www.divinumofficium.com/ . For people seeing value in this project and willing to contribute to it it will be no greater obstacle than for the Divinum Officium folks.

For typos in scores imported from GregoBase the "please go to GregoBase and fix it there" approach is just OK. But cases like this one, where we are already beginning to correct Sandhofe, are controversial. I wouldn't find it right to change the GregoBase score, which is declared to be a transcription from Sandhofe's Nocturnale Romanum, to different lyrics - even if these may be actually "more correct".

from nocturnale-romanum.

If anyone has an online source for the editio typica text, I would certainly appreciate having it!

Agreed nobi is a typo which I will repair presently in Gregobase. My other sources (cited below) also have computarentur rather than Sandhofe's computaremus. But divitiae seems right.

I do not have a strict editio typica; I confirmed divitiae in accordance with my breviary, which is from Liturgical Press, Collegeville MN "The Hours of the Divine Office in English and Latin", 1964 "in accord with the editio typica". This R occurs Tuesday in Week 3 of Sept in the post 1962 rubrics. It is also what appears in the Cantus database as the 'standardized text' for this text. Finally, there is a pre-1960 monastic rite breviary online at the internet archive (archive.org) which has divitiae for R4 3rd Sunday in Sept, pg. 307 (but editio altera). https://archive.org/details/breviarium-monasticum-pars-ii/Breviarium%20Monasticum%20-%20Pars%20II/

As to having a separate text field - not sure. Regarding error checking: there would be questions as to whether the plain text matched the text in the gabc unless the latter were programmatically prepared from the former; then there is the question of accents, punctuation, etc. It could be done, I suppose, but not sure if it is easier than just comparing the representation/pdf of the gabc to the printed text, unless we had some way to have the actual text to do machine-based comparisons.

Whether or not a separate text field with just text would be helpful for doing text searches is a possibility, but not sure it is worth the effort? If it can be prepared programmatically from the gabc, stripping accents and with case-insensitive searching, maybe so as part of the final 'product'. But not sure it is helpful in preparing the book.

from nocturnale-romanum.

Jakub raises a good point about the Gregobase/Sandhofe editions. Perhaps I should replicate the text exactly and put a note in the Remark section about the text divergence. Not sure how often this may have occurred in Gregobase. I certainly would not have made more than two or three such corrections all told as I "have little Latin and no Greek."

from nocturnale-romanum.

Above I actually meant 'former prepared from the latter'. On the surface, it seems it would not be too difficult to programmatically take a gabc file and extract the text by discarding stuff between parentheses and square brackets. The and tags may add a wrinkle. Some people in Gregobase cut and paste their own V/ and R/ symbols from a font which does not display universally. And the further down the rabbit hole you go, the more minor challenges one can expect.

Someone out there wrote a utility for matching text to gabc note clusters. So you could, for example, typeset the notes of a single verse of a hymn in gabc and then merge text from a separate file to the note blocks. Not sure how it handles syllabification - I guess maybe you are just typing separate syllables in that case. I thought about using it for hymns, but it seemed more trouble to learn than just typing out the hymns.

from nocturnale-romanum.

Thanks to both of you for your insight.

It is clear to me that as a general rule attempts to correct Sandhofe should not be done in Gregobase, but on the Nocturnale website, using the future "close this proposal into mine" feature. However, there is a history of people fixing a printed source's clear-cut typos in Gregobase. I do not judge this one way or another, that is for Olivier Berten to do.

Re: where to submit tickets: GitHub it is, then.

Re: the checking of text: I need to write GABC guidelines somewhere, because at some point there will be a script to check that nothing funny is going on with the GABC proposals, like using or unexpected 's or weird note shapes or special characters beyond those expected, etc.

Re: a dedicated text field for chants: I agree that there may be a point where the editorial committee has to choose between text variants and not only between melodies, so I'm moving away from the idea of having a fixed text field (if not only for search purposes, to be discussed). I do not completely close the door on the idea, though.

from nocturnale-romanum.

Maybe I didn't do the right thing, but I just dropped a 'my version' into git hub with the 'corrected' text and otherwise unchanged from Sandhofe. Feel free to delete it if this is not helpful. I am also a git hub novice. Even less than novice.

from nocturnale-romanum.

@leduc006 You did not drop your version into GitHub (this website) but into http://nocturnale.marteo.fr/ , which is the right thing to do, except the site is not in a "production stage" but rather publicly available for people to request features and suggest better implementation / layout of existing features.

from nocturnale-romanum.