University of Virginia Library

Search this document 


  

expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
collapse section 
  
  
Notes
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
  
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
  
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 
expand section 

expand section 

Notes

 
[1]

In this context it is homonyms which present the greatest problems. An intermediate run on the computer might readily compile a glossary or word-list from which homographs such art = n. could be distinguished before another concording stage, but this process is not economical.

[2]

The flexibility of these programs in dealing with texts which they were not designed to treat has already been tested on concordances of Middle English manuscripts, and I am preparing to concord an edition of Bullokar (which has particularly complicated orthographical characteristics) and some Victorian prose.

[3]

G. Dewey, Relative frequency of English speech sounds (1923), p. 17f.

[4]

Should anyone be interested in having a full listing of occurrences of words on the 'count' or 'location' lists, it would be possible to obtain them only by processing the texts again. Economy could be achieved by treating the principal words of the text as words to be given short listing, leaving only the previously rejected words to be concorded in full.

[5]

The more complex program to which I refer in the last paragraph circumvents this difficulty.

[6]

This method of line numbering has been adopted by the Modern Language Association's Variorum Committee, and will be used in Professor Hinman's forthcoming First Folio facsimile and by Dr. Walker in the Oxford Old-Spelling Shakespeare. I am grateful for their co-operation in establishing this system and in the application of it to the texts.