(tlg0001.tlg001) revert to original πλυμμυρίς at 4.1241

[whoopsedesy]

The original print edition (Geroge W. Mooney 1912) has πλυμμυρίς:
https://archive.org/details/argonauticaedite00apoluoft/page/371/mode/1up
It's also πλυμμυρίς in Teubner 1828:
https://archive.org/details/apolloniirhodiia00apol/page/n284/mode/1up

In the Perseus version, πλυμμυρίς was amended to πλημμυρίς (υ changed to η) in #1241.

However the Oxford Classical Texts OCT (Fraenkel 1961, repr. 1970) has πλημυρίς (remove the second μ):
sasansom/sedes#57 (comment)

Cc @sasansom

[lcerrato]

@whoopsedesy
There should be no correction here. Looks like I was corresponding with a user and I took his word for it but he used the wrong print source edition. The only valid correction from the original was the terminal sigma.

[lcerrato]

should simply read πλυμμυρίς (no choice/sic/corr tags).

[whoopsedesy]

Okay—so if I understand the intention, it's that the TEI should represent the print edition it was derived from, even when that print edition is in error. Is that right?

In that case, do you want me to revise this pull request to do as you suggest; i.e., change <choice><sic>πλυμμυρίς</sic><corr>πλημμυρίς</corr></choice> to just plain πλυμμυρίς, or did you intend to do it?

I see 41d7c4d is the terminal sigma change you referred to.

[lcerrato]

@whoopsedesy
Yes, we represent the print edition. We do not attempt to capture variants or, typically, the apparatus criticus.

If the form is an error (an obvious misprint) we may add the tagging you see here. Do you think it's a variant or an error? If you believe it's an error, we can include the <choice> tags.

[whoopsedesy]

I'll let @sasansom chime in if desired, but to my eye, to match the print edition it should be just πλυμμυρίς.

[lcerrato]

@whoopsedesy @sasansom
I'm leaning towards reverting to the original as I see it across multiple early editions. I don't know why I changed it. (It also does not help that the viewer does not display the <choice> tag presently.)

[sasansom]

@whoopsedesy @lcerrato I think the text should read either 1) πλημμυρίς or πλημυρίς with some tag indicating the Perseus source text (Mooney) gives πλυμμυρίς but it is a poor reading (if such a tag exists) or, less preferable, 2) πλυμμυρίς with choice tags for πλημυρίς or πλημμυρίς. πλυμμυρίς is a bad choice for a few reasons. No new edition after 1900 prints it (unless Vian Pairs 1981 does which I haven't seen yet). Mooney bases his text on Seaton (Oxford 1900), who originally printed πλυμμυρίς, but when Seaton re-edited the text for the Loeb (1912) he changed it to πλημμυρίς. Pompella 1970 prints πλημμυρίς as well. Β Fränkel (1961) and Race (2008) print πλημυρίς with a single μ, presumably because the double mu is metrically unnecessary following a long eta. The earliest texts, including a 15th cen. manuscript, that I've seen write/print πλημμυρίς. I've updated the list at the top of the thread (I couldn't track down Lascaris' 1496 editio princeps and our library here is inexplicably missing book IV of Vian's 1981 Budé): A Sianiticus manuscript (1406) has πλημμυρίς: https://www.loc.gov/resource/amedmonastery.00271076708-ms/?sp=94&st=image&r=0.533,0.446,0.177,0.106,0 Hölzlin (Leiden 1641) prints πλημμυρίς: https://www.google.com/books/edition/APOLLONII_RHODII_ARGONAVTICORVM_LIBRI_IV/sG79Y3lF3KEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=RA1-PA493&printsec=frontcover Brunck (Strasbourg 1780) prints πλυμμυρίς: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Apollonii_Rhodii_Argonautica_emendate_ed/JmMUAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA169&printsec=frontcover Wellauer (Leipzig 1828) prints πλυμμυρίς: https://archive.org/details/apolloniirhodiia00apol/page/n284/mode/1up Merkel (originally Leipzig 1854, here 1897 <https://archive.org/details/apolloniirhodiia00apoluoft/page/n183/mode/2up>) prints πλυμμυρίς. Seaton (Oxford 1900 <https://hdl.handle.net/2027/njp.32101077778767?urlappend=%3Bseq=191%3Bownerid=13510798896711080-197>) prints πλυμμυρίς: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101077778767&seq=191 Mooney (the Perseus text) uses Seaton 1900 (who he says "is mainly that of Merkel") prints πλυμμυρίς https://archive.org/details/ahp4955.0001.001.umich.edu/page/n5/mode/2up Seaton Loeb 1912 <https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.103685/page/377/mode/2up> prints πλημμυρίς: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.103685/page/377/mode/2up Fränkel (Oxford 1961) prints πλημυρίς. Pompella (Napoli 1970) prints πλημμυρίς. Race (Loeb 2008) prints πλημυρίς. Somewhere in between Hölzlin 1641 and Brunck 1780 it switches from πλημμυρίς to πλυμμυρίς, though I don't know why. In terms of corpus linguistics (via TLG), πλημυρίς (or πλημμυρίς) is preferable. πλυμμυρίς is found nowhere else in Greek. Neither is the letter sequence πλυμμυρ-. The sequence πλυμμ- is rare, always found after the 2nd century AD, and almost always in the Galenic corpus as either the perfect passive participle of πλύνω ("to wash"), e.g. πεπλυμμένον (Galen, *De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis ac faultatibus libri xi* 11.490.3), or the noun πλύμα ("wash water"), which is printed as with two mus (μμ, as in πλύμμα) twice in Greek: ἀναγαργαριζέσθωσαν πιτύρων πλύμματι θερμῷ (Galen, *De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos libri x* 12.975.16) and Ῥάσδου ῥίζαν κοπανήσας βάλλε εἰς τὸ πλύμμα αὐτῶν (Pseudo-Galen *De remediis parabilibus libri iii* 14.526.4). Conversely, the lemma πλημυρίς (and its alternate πλημμυρίς) is frequent, occuring in *Od*. 9.486 either (via West Berlin/Boston 2017) with single mu (πλημυρὶς ἐκ πόντοιο, ApS B U Eust.) or two mus (πλημμ-, t* Z Ω*) and 260 other times in the Greek corpus. Semantically, πλημυρίς/πλημμυρίς is preferable; its etymology perhaps from πλήμη ("flood-tide" Beekes 2010 s.v. πλημυρίς) better fits the sailing context of *Argon*. 4.1241 than πλυμ-, which would derive from "to wash" (πλύνω) but otherwise extant forms yield something like "bath-water" or "waste-water" (LSJ s.v. πλύμμα). We could also ask about Apollonius' choice for unnecessary geminates after long-by-nature syllables, or track down manuscripts and see what the tradition could tell us. I'd like to see what lexicographies by Campbell (Hildesheim 1983) and Papthomopoulos (Hildesheim 1996) say as well.

[lcerrato]

@sasansom
This is a long and excellent explanation.

Once we begin to add new scholarship or corrections that deviate from the print, we should be creating what could be a new derivation or a new edition. This is no longer a digital version of the Mooney. It's arguably new work.

We don't have the second option presently, where we impose a new independent reading on the primary text. We could perhaps footnote it and credit you with the information provided here in that context. A footnote would also be immediately visible in the Scaife Viewer whereas anything else I add might not be in the short term. A credit in the text header is also warranted when there are many such edits.

We are working towards a reader-based commentary system that would permit this type of one-off editing or note ingestion to address these very type of situations, but we do not have that presently. I should add that when we experimented with something like this in Perseus 4, we had readers question the basis for these notations. It was clear that some readers did not like the idea that we were not presenting the edition as it was printed.

So, to keep with current practice and offer something further, I would say to add a footnote that succinctly notes this is a hapax that makes no sense might be the best approach. We don't have a mechanism to link to other sources easily in the context of the note markup so none of the above links are going to appear.

A mature commentary system is really a better fit for this much dense and detailed information.

[sasansom]

@lcerrato
Many thanks. Sounds good on making the better reading into a footnote for now, and agreed that a commentary (or generous apparatus criticus, at least for the manuscript and editorial variants) would be a better fit for a note like this.
cc @whoopsedesy

[whoopsedesy]

I've updated the pull request to simply revert to the original πλυμμυρίς, reflecting the print edition. That seems to be the main point of consensus, given the current limitations in the reader around the choice element described at #1752 (comment), and the uncertainty about how to annotate alternatives in #1752 (comment). Please advise if you'd like it to be done in a different way.