Re: [eledmac] sameword and lemma

[Florian Grammel <florian.grammel@xxxxxxxxx>]

> The sameword level system, is, I recognize it, a little bit complex. But there is no other solution, as explained in the beginning of § 6.3.3

I don't think it would be a serious problem when editing from scratch — it takes a lot of time and thought anyway, and the editor will check the typesetting of the code while working with it. But writing a conversion-script that takes all possible nesting into account is not trivial…

> But your conclusion is wrong. 
> - if you have only one level of edtext, you can use inlemma
> - if you have more than one level of edtext, you must set the level EXCEPT if the sameword is shared between all the level. In this case, you can use inlemma.

That is also what I first though reading the documentation. But I was surprised to find something like

    \edtext{some \sameword[inlemma]{SW},
               %
			\edtext{\sameword[inlemma]{SW} and another \sameword{SW} and \sameword[inlemma]{SW}}{%
				\lemma{\sameword{SW} … \sameword{SW}}%
				\Afootnote{some note}}
       	and again \sameword{SW}, it is all %
			\edtext{\sameword{SW}}{%
			\Afootnote{single occurence}}
		etc.}%
       {\lemma{some \sameword{SW} \ldots{} etc}\Afootnote{critical note}}.


would produce correct results. First using the same sameword twice needed the explicit numbers to come out correctly:

    \edtext{some \sameword[1]{SW},
               %
			\edtext{\sameword[2]{SW} and another \sameword{SW} and \sameword[2]{SW}}{%
				\lemma{\sameword{SW} … \sameword{SW}}%
				\Afootnote{some note}}
       	and again \sameword{SW}, it is all %
			\edtext{\sameword[1]{SW}}{%
			\Afootnote{single occurence}}
		etc.}%
       {\lemma{some \sameword{SW} \ldots{} \sameword{SW} etc}\Afootnote{critical note}}.


Hence my bold generalisation.

Is the first just dumb luck for this specific example?

Best regards
F


____________________________________________

Florian Grammel

Copenhagen, Denmark