Indeksdiskussion:Historie om Jon Præst - 1510.pdf

Anden tekst

På https://tekstnet.dk/books/anon_jon-praest-ghemen/ findes en transskriberet version, der evt. kan bruges til kontrol. MGA73 (diskussion) 7. jul. 2026, 16:49 (UTC)

My major motivation for attempting the proofreading such a work was 1) the pdf file and index were already on Danish Wikisource, but without any text added and so was just a Commons file with an empty index and in an uncomplete, seemlingly abandoned form. 2) The work was short (and indeed, it only took two days to fully proofread). 3) I found its presence on this site a bit interesting because, from my study of Middle High German, I remember that Prester Jon is mentioned in such works as Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival (1200's) and so, strange as it might be, this "fantastic" letter kind of went viral in the Middle Ages initially during the time of the crusades through multiple sources and translations. 4) The work an interesting example of early printing (1510) in Denmark by a publisher, originally from Holland.

The link mentioned has already been consulted in the creation of the text of this version and given that this index had no text before I added it, proved to be very useful in the speedy completion of this work. Rather than dumping a strictly copy and paste version of something already existent on the internet, however, I choose in this edition to include simple abbreviations along with a tool tip which "explains" most of them, omit punctuation which was not present in the original and leave capitalization as indicated in the manuscript. In other words, this edition attempts to follow the manuscript more closely than the textnet version and is not intended to be a copy of that work, but rather of the manuscript itself. Whether or not this is advisable or not is a debatable issue. However, my intent here was only to update on Wikisource an existing small contribution with appropriate text, something that previously had been missing from this abandoned project. I would, however, encourage anyone who might be thinking of validating my work to please not change it into the tekstnet version. That version already exists and I feel that sticking to manuscript more closely and adding tooltip expansion of common abbreviations adds to the pedagogical value this alternate edition.

PWidergren (diskussion) 9. jul. 2026, 12:19 (UTC)

Hi PWidergren! I fully agree that the version on Wikisource should match the original and not whatever is in tekstnet. The reason I added the link was only to make it easier to proofread the test. I love it that you add an explanation to many of the words that are not easy to understand. --MGA73 (diskussion) 9. jul. 2026, 12:40 (UTC)

Hiello PWidergren! Another user (Ditlev Petersen) have now read the work and made a few adjustments. If you agree on the changes then the work should be finished. If there are any changes you do not agree on perhaps you could list them here? I checked a few of the changes and I find it really hard to figure out which letter the print shows in some cases. --MGA73 (diskussion) 27. jul. 2026, 06:20 (UTC)

Having access to another pair of eyes is helpful. The changes that were made make sense to me.

I am OK with it.

PWidergren (diskussion) 27. jul. 2026, 07:02 (UTC)