Linguistica e filologia digitale: aspetti e progetti

a cura di Paola Cotticelli Kurras

Edizioni dellOrso Alessandria

 2011 Copyright by Edizioni dellOrso s.r.l. via Rattazzi, 47 15121 Alessandria tel. 0131.252349 fax 0131.257567 e-mail: edizionidellorso@libero.it http://www.ediorso.it Redazione informatica e impaginazione a cura di ARUN MALTESE (bear.am@savonaonline.it) vietata la riproduzione, anche parziale, non autorizzata, con qualsiasi mezzo effettuata, compresa la fotocopia, anche a uso interno e didattico. Lillecito sar penalmente perseguibile a norma dellart. 171 della Legge n. 633 del 22.04.41 ISBN 978-88-6274-263-4

Indice
PAOLA COTTICELLI KURRAS Presentazione SERGIO ALIVERNINI / CARLO MATTEO SCALZO Two Applications of Semantic Web Technologies to the Studies of Ancient Near East. MANUELA ANELLI Ledizione digitale dei testi epigrafici come strumento di ricerca. I: il progetto Iscrizioni Latine Arcaiche. MANUEL BARBERA Intorno a Schema e storia del Corpus Taurinense. FEDERICO BOSCHETTI Parallelization of Ancient Greek OCR. MARINA BUZZONI The Electronic Hliand Project: theoretical and practical updates. PAOLA COTTICELLI KURRAS / ALFREDO TROVATO Lessico di linguistica online: progetto di un archivio digitale. FEDERICO GIUSFREDI / ALFREDO RIZZA Zipfs law and the distribution of written signs. ODD EINAR HAUGEN Do we need all these characters? On the transcription and Encoding of Medieval Primary Sources. STEFANO MINOZZI Latin WordNet: a semantic network for Latin. MARTA MUSCARIELLO Ledizione digitale dei testi epigrafici come strumento di ricerca. II: qualche nota sul progetto Iscrizioni Latine Arcaiche. MATTEO ROMANELLO The digital critical edition of fragments: theoretical problems and technical solutions. GIULIA SARULLO Ledizione digitale dei testi epigrafici come strumento di ricerca. III: The Encoding of the Archaic Latin Inscriptions. MARCO TOMATIS Computational and methodological aspects of the Corpus Taurinense disambiguation process.

19 27 49 55 69 87

101 121

131

147

157

171

Ledizione digitale dei testi epigrafici come strumento di ricerca. III The Encoding of the Archaic Latin Inscriptions
Giulia Sarullo
The archaic Latin inscriptions that will constitute the ILA Project1, dating back to the period between the VII and the V century BC, present several peculiar characteristics that distinguish them from later epigraphic documents. While the encoders of these latter texts deal with abbreviations and their expansions, deleted or overstruck texts, our major encoding issues concern the transcription of the letters actually on the object with the ductus they follow and the frequent lacunae that in most of the cases are impossible to integrate. In order to show the problems that the encoding of these epigraphs poses, some of these issues will be discussed below.

1. EPIDOC In the last decade, several projects of digitization of Greek and Latin inscriptions have been launched in order to make the epigraphs more easily accessible but also to provide a set of additional information (such as photographs and representations, bibliographical references, etc.) complementing the edition of the text. Naturally, a corpus of inscriptions can be digitalized in many ways according to the different issues that each project poses2. Unlike the Epigraphic Database Rome (EDR)3, which is a database like the other projects related to the Electronic Archive of Greek and Latin Epigraphy (EAGLE)4, we decided to digitalize the archaic Latin inscriptions according to the EpiDoc Guidelines5, a set of recommendations for XML markup of epigraphic documents that is becoming a standard for the epigraphic projects using

1 For a description of the ILA Project, see Anelli and Muscariello in this volume (19-26; 131145) and Anelli / Muscariello (2009). 2 On the discussion about the establishing of a standard in epigraphic markup see Mahoney (2006: 228) and Tissoni (2008: 32-36). 3 http://www.edr-edr.it/. See also Evangelisti (2010). 4 http://www.eagle-eagle.it/. The other databases related to Eagle are the Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg (EDH), http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/institute/sonst/adw/edh/index.html,the Epigraphic Database Bari (EDB), http://www.edb.uniba.it/, and Hispania Epigraphica (HE), http://www.eda-bea.es/. 5 http://www.stoa.org/epidoc/gl/5/. At the moment (October 2010), an initiative is underway to update the online version of the Guidelines. In the meantime, the best source for up-to-date information about EpiDoc is the training materials posted at http://wiki.digitalclassicist.org/EpiDoc_Summer_School#Programme.

158

Giulia Sarullo

XML6. EpiDoc was originally conceived by Tom Elliott of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with Hugh Cayless and Amy Hawkins, and its guidelines are continuously updated and revised on the basis of experience by the EpiDoc Community7. Actually, EpiDoc8 is an adaptation for epigraphic documents of the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI)9, an XML system created for the digital publication of texts and manuscripts for research purposes. As stated in Burnard and Bauman 2006 (About These Guidelines): The TEI encoding scheme is of particular usefulness in facilitating the loss-free interchange of data amongst individuals and research groups using different programs, computer systems, or application software. Therefore, by using a TEI scheme, based on XML, the EpiDoc encoded inscriptions not only are extremely compatible with other text projects created according to these specifications, but they can also be transferred from a system into another without losing any information and they can be translated into another markup language, thus guaranteeing its surviving to any possible future development10. Moreover, XML allows to encode not only information about the display of text, but also the structure and semantics of data. This way, it can be processed, indexed, queried by a search engine, it can contain cross-references to other texts or images and generate table of contents and concordances. The spreading of the EpiDoc guidelines for the encoding of epigraphic texts and their emerging as a standard is probably associated to the fact that an EpiDoc file is an XML edition of an inscription (or of an entire corpus) according to the Leiden conventions11, that is the standard conventions used for marking up epigraphic texts and papyri in printed editions. The text encoded with the EpiDoc specifications, then, after the XSL style sheet is applied12, will show the same typographical marks a printed edition following the Leiden system would have, thus being immediately comprehensible to any epigrapher. Finally, the EpiDoc file may also contain all kinds of information related to the ob-

XML Extensible Markup Language, a subset of SGML Standard Generalized Markup Language, is a metalanguage of extensible markup used for the description of marked-up electronic texts (Burnard 2006). 7 I would like to thank Tom Elliott, Gabriel Bodard, Francesco Tissoni and all the people that have been helping us in the long and difficult path of the encoding of the archaic Latin inscriptions. 8 Elliott (2000-2010). 9 http://www.tei-c.org/index.xml. 10 Tissoni (2008: 37-38) and Bodard (2010: 104-105). 11 For the Leiden conventions see Krummrey / Panciera (1980) and Panciera (2006a and 2006b). For their use in EpiDoc files see Elliot (2007), Mahoney (2006: 229) and Bodard (2010: 105). 12 In XML, all the instructions about the display of the text are stored in a separate file called stylesheet, Bodard (2010: 104, 110-111). The EpiDoc stylesheets can be found at http://epidoc. sourceforge.net/resources.shtml#xslt.

Ledizione digitale dei testi epigrafici come strumento di ricerca

159

ject (such as description and dating) and its text (such as apparatus and commentary), together with bibliographical references, images (photographs and representations) and cross references to other texts. We will now provide a general overview of the syntax dictated by EpiDoc, supported by some examples.

2. THE EPIGRAPHIC CHART Every epigraphic document of our corpus will be published on our website in an epigraphic chart (Fig. 1) that will show all useful information about it13. The first half of the chart, regarding the identification of the inscription, the physical description of the object and of the text, is encoded with the <msDesc>14 element15, which contains a description of a single identifiable manuscript or other text-bearing object (Burnard / Bauman 2009: 297) and usually appears within the <sourceDesc> element of the header of a TEI conformant document. Within the <msIdentifier> element, different tags denote the name and the number identifying the inscription, the actual place in which the object is stored and its catalog number. The <physDesc> element, which is used to describe the object and the text, follows. As regard to the object, we will provide a physical description of the item on which the inscription is written with <objectDesc> element, which will contain a <supportDesc> element, collecting all the details regarding the support on which the text is inscribed, and a <layoutDesc> element, containing the description of the text campus. On the other hand, with <handDesc> we will present the scriptura, the ductus, the punctuation, and the dimensions of the letters. After the <physDesc> element, the <history> element collects the data about the history of the object; in our chart we will use this element to indicate the findspot and the dating. It is common knowledge that it is very unlikely to have a precise dating of the epigraphic documents and this is even more the case with the archaic inscriptions; for this reason we prefer to indicate a terminus post quem and a terminus ante quem with the attributes @notBefore and @notAfter of the <origDate> element. The <history> element concludes the first part of the epigraphic chart and is the last element of the <msDesc> element.

A description of the entries of the epigraphic chart is provided in Anelli / Muscariello (2009) and further developed in Anelli in this volume (20-21). Here we will provide a schematization of the chart from the point of view of the encoding according to the EpiDoc specifications. 14 The name of this element clearly refers to a manuscript description, nevertheless the structure of this element is general enough that it can be used for any kind of inscribed artefact. See Burnard / Baumann (2009: 297). 15 An XML element or tag, together with its possible attribute(s), is enclosed within angular brackets; there must be an opening tag and a closing tag (containing the name of the element preceded by a forward slash) indicating the end of the text to which the element applies. See below for some examples.

13

160

Giulia Sarullo

Fig. 1: A facsimile of the epigraphic chart of the ILA Project. Each entry of the second part of the chart corresponds to a <div> element of the EpiDoc file, that is a typed division which can contain a certain category of information16. These <div> tags are specified by the @type and @subtype attributes and defined by a <head> element, which contains the heading of the <div>. In an EpiDoc file the possible values for the @type of a <div> are: edition, translation17, apparatus, commentary, description, history18, bibliography, and figure. Under two <div type=commentary> instances the epigraphic commentary and the linguistic commentary will appear, with subtype=epigraphic and subtype=lin-

16 See the EpiDoc Guidelines - EpiDoc divisions (tei:div) of the text element (tei:text) at http://www.stoa.org/epidoc/gl/5/teidiv.html and, more recently, the slideshow Div Types and Subtypes at http://wiki.digitalclassicist.org/EpiDoc_Summer_School#Programme. 17 As regards the translation, the archaic Latin inscriptions present two issues: on the one hand, we have long epigraphs that, because of the archaic nature of their text, are controversially interpreted; on the other hand, we have very short epigraphs that cannot be interpreted, let alone translated. For these reasons, the <div type=translation> will not appear in the ILA epigraphic chart. See also Muscariello (2008: 216). 18 In the latest version of EpiDoc, which complies to TEI P5, the descriptions of the object and the history of the object previously provided in <div type=description> and <div type=history> respectively are now collected in <msDesc>, as it has been explained above. These two division types, then, are now obsolete.

Ledizione digitale dei testi epigrafici come strumento di ricerca

161

guistic respectively. Other values for div/@type that will appear in our project are figure (with @subtype=photographs and @subtype=representations) and bibliography, that will be linked to master bibliography. The core of the EpiDoc file is the <div type=edition> in which the text of the inscription will be reported with all the markup that is necessary to reproduce it according to Leiden conventions. In comparison with later texts, the archaic Latin inscriptions need a very small range of the sigla used in Leiden. In the XML markup all the Leiden sigla are converted into XML tags indicating their semantic information; no Leiden symbol will then appear in the markup. A few examples will show the most frequent elements used to mark up the archaic Latin inscriptions.

3. THE ENCODING OF THE ARCHAIC LATIN INSCRIPTIONS Because of the fragmentary nature of the epigraphic documents of ILAs corpus, one of the most frequently used is the sign indicating the lacunae, that in EpiDoc is marked up with the <gap> element, together with attributes defining the extent of the lacuna. We use the same <gap> element both at the beginning and/or at the end of the text, if the object is broken, and in the middle of the text if the object is damaged. In our project, this element can have @reason=lost if the text is completely lost and unrecoverable, or @reason=illegible if some traces of text remain on the surface but cannot be interpreted. For example, in the case of the Vendia inscription19 (Fig. 2), one of the texts that were identified as Latin only later on, there is a <gap> element in the middle of the text as well as a <gap> element at the end of the inscription both defined by the @reason=lost attribute. Here we reproduce a basic20 encoding of the text of the Vendia inscription according to the EpiDoc specifications.

Fig. 2: The Vendia inscription (Peruzzi 1963).

The bibliography on the archaic Latin inscriptions is very wide and an extensive citation would go beyond the scope of this paper. Only the references to specific issues will be reported. For an updated bibliography on the most important archaic Latin inscriptions, see Hartmann (2005). 20 There are different levels of encoding, according to the aim of the project. Here, because of lack of space, a basic level of encoding will be presented in order to show the peculiarities of the texts, whereas a more specific encoding will be performed in the actual project.
19

162

Giulia Sarullo

<div type=edition lang=la> <head>Trascrizione</head> <ab> <lb n=1 rend=left-to-right/>ECOVRNA<persName><name type=praenomen> TITA</name><name type=gentilicium>VENDI<unclear reason=damage>A </unclear><supplied reason=undefined evidence=previouseditor><hi rend=reversed>S</hi></supplied></name></persName><persName>MAMA </persName><gap reason=lost extent=unknown unit=character/> <unclear reason=damage>E</unclear> <unclear reason=damage>D</unclear> <unclear reason=damage>F</unclear> <unclear reason=damage>H</unclear> <unclear reason=damage>E</unclear> <gap reason=lost extent=unknown unit=character/> </ab> </div>

This encoding, after the application of the stylesheet, will be displayed as: ECOVRNATITAVENDIA SMAMAR[-]EDFHE[ As it has been shown, the Vendia inscription needs a complex markup in that it presents many issues, both from the editorial and the semantic point of view. A comparison of early pictures of the object with more recent ones shows that a piece of the object that was previously present is now missing (Fig. 3). This is why the -S of VENDIAS is marked up with <supplied reason=undefined evidence=previouseditor> and in the display it is underlined (according to Leiden conventions21). Moreover, this same sign is written in the direction opposite to the ductus of the inscription, so we decided to use the <hi rend=reversed> tag. This encoding is generally used to markup the reversed letters that can be encountered in later epigraphic documents, that is the initial letter of an abbreviated word written as reversed to avoid misunderstandings of gender. One of the most frequent example is the reversed C for mulier woman (literally Caia), used in the onomastic formula of freedmen (between the nomen gentilicium and the cognomen) to signal that the individual was the slave of the woman whose gentilicium he bore; another example is the reversed F for femina / filia22. As a matter of fact, when the standard EpiDoc XSLT is applied a letter marked up with the element <hi rend=reversed> would be enclosed in double round parenthesis (e.g. ((S)) in our text), as suggested by Panciera23 for the

Krummrey / Panciera (1980: 210). Di Stefano Manzella (1987: 151-152). 23 Appare inoltre opportuno introdurre un nuovo segno (( )), per contraddistinguere unitariamente tutta una serie di casi in cui leditore scrive qualcosa di diverso da ci che sta sulla pietra e questo non per correzione o aggiunta, ma per ricorso ad una sorta di equivalenza o trasposizione, come nel caso delle litterae claudiane, la cui resa era rimasta sin qui sostanzial22

21

Ledizione digitale dei testi epigrafici come strumento di ricerca

163

cases in which the editor writes something different from what is actually on the stone not as a correction but as a sort of transposition, as in the case of the litterae inversae. In archaic Latin epigraphy, though, the reversed letters do not carry a particular meaning, as the later examples above mentioned, and are frequent especially in the most archaic testimonies in which the ductus is fluctuating (see for example the Tibur pedestal inscription below); it is then common practice to leave these letters unmarked and we decided to comply to this practice; nevertheless, we decided to use the <hi rend=reversed> element anyway so that in a search it would be possible to recover all the inscriptions presenting a reversed letter.

Fig. 3: The picture on the left (Peruzzi 1998) shows a piece that went missing after the restauration (photo by M. Anelli, May 2009).

Besides the above mentioned <gap> element, we also used the <unclear> tag, that is an element that designates a letter, or a group of letters, whose reading is not clear. In this instance, @reason gets the value damage because the uncertainty of the reading is due to a break of the object; if, instead, the doubt derives from an uncertain execution by the engraver we can use the value execution. We can think for example of the Duenos inscription (CIL I2 4), in which the author shows some indecision in the engraving of the sign C/K24, or of the Tibur pedestal inscription (CIL I2 2658) that will be discussed below; outside our corpus, instead, there is the famous example of the VIII century olla from Gabii, generally read as EULIN, whose interpretation is quite controversial because of the difficult decoding of the second and third signs (Fig. 4).

mente irrisolta, oppure nel caso delle litterae inversae, delle notae verborum vel numerorum, degli anaglypha, Panciera (2006b: 1722). 24 Prosdocimi (1979: 177-180).

164

Giulia Sarullo

From the semantic point of view, the <persName> element, which classifies a word as a personal name, occurs two times in the encoding of this inscription. Unlike those we have encountered up to now, this kind of element does not influence the appearance of the text, but they are necessary to index and query the corpus, in that they provide semantic information, in this case, that the words marked with this element are personal names. The markup of personal names can be basic, with the <persName> element alone (as for MAMAR[ in this inscription), or can be further tagged with the identification of the individual names through the <name> element, specified by the @type=praenomen and the @type=gentilicium attributes, as in the case of TITA VENDIAS. Each <name> element could also contain the @reg attribute indicating the regularized form of the name (usually the nominative) and/or a @ref pointing to an onomastic database. In our corpus, since several terms are very archaic, we decided to index names (and words as well) as they appear in the text and not in their lemmatized form, which is not always attested. In the same way, theonyms will be tagged with a specific element, that is <persName type=divine> (see for example the lamina from Lavinium below). Because of lack of space, the markup of each word with the <w> element has been omitted in the encodings here presented. In the Vendia inscription, we would have, for example, <w>VRNA</w>, whereas in the lamina from Lavinium a specific markup will be necessary to denote QUROIS as a non-latin word.

Fig. 4: Two examples of <unclear reason:execution>: the Duenos Vase (CIL I2 4) and the olla from Gabii (photo by M. Anelli).

4. DUCTUS In the archaic Latin inscriptions the ductus is a predominant issue that requires a specific markup. However, this markup does not affect the display of the letters in the

Ledizione digitale dei testi epigrafici come strumento di ricerca

165

transcription of the text that will always be written from left to right but the actual ductus will be indicated by an arrow above each line. In the encoding of the Vendia inscription, at the beginning of the line, inside the empty <lb/> element25 we specify through the @rend=left-to-right attribute that this is the ductus of the inscription. As a matter of fact, this was not strictly necessary in this case, in that left-to-right is the default value for the @rend attribute of a <lb/> element. Nevertheless, unlike more recent inscriptions that have a predominant left-to-right ductus, the inscriptions dating from the VII and VI century BC show a fluctuating trend: there are, for example, right-to-left epigraphs, such as the inscription on the silver bowl from Praeneste VETUSIA (or the above mentioned Duenos inscription CIL I2 4), indicated with @rend=right-to-left; boustrophedon, such as in the Forum Romanum cippus (CIL I2 1), indicated with a different value on each line (@rend=left-to-right and @rend=right-to-left); and there are also some particular cases such as the Castor and Pollux dedication from Lavinium (CIL I2 2833) and the Tibur pedestal inscription (CIL I2 2658). In the lamina from Lavinium (Fig. 5) the inscription is engraved on two lines from right to left, but at the end of the first line, perhaps for lack of space (Bloch 1960:187), the author rotated the lamina 90 degrees clockwise and wrote the last two vowels of the conjunction -que vertically. In the encoding process we treated these two vowels as a separate line defined by the element <lb n=2 rend=up-to-down/> in order to point out the different ductus, thus raising the number of lines to 3.

Fig. 5: The lamina from Lavinium (photo by M. Anelli - apograph by G. Sarullo).

25 The <lb/> tag (line break) allows to mark each line of the text separately and can contain the @n attribute to indicate the numbering of the line. This is an empty element that does not need to be closed.

166

Giulia Sarullo

<div type=edition lang=la> <head>Trascrizione</head> <ab> <lb n=1 rend=right-to-left/><persName type=divine>CASTOREI</persName> <g type=dipunct/>26<persName type=divine>PODLOVQEIQ</persName> <lb n=2 rend=up-to-down/>VE <lb n=3 rend=right-to-left/>QVROIS </ab> </div>

CASTOREI : PODLOVQVEIQ / VE / QVROIS A more complex case is that of the Tibur pedestal inscription (Fig. 6), which presents a serpentine ductus. This text is marked up as seven different lines and each line is specified by the attribute of the direction of writing. The much debated interpretation of this problematic text is not the subject of this speech27; we will dwell only upon its possible markup, which gives us the chance to highlight some other features that characterize the archaic inscriptions in comparison with the later ones.

Fig. 6: The Tibur pedestal inscription (photo by M. Anelli - apograph by Mancini 1979). Probably due to the alternation of the ductus, this text presents both reversed letters (that we have already discussed with regard to the Vendia inscription) and upside-down letters28, a peculiarity that occurs in a few Latin epigraphic documents

The <g> tag (namely glyph) is an empty element denoting the presence of a non alphabetic symbol that can or cannot bear a meaning. 27 As it has been said (Anelli in this volume: 21), every reading of an inscription will be presented in the ILA Project. The encoding here reproduced reports the text published by Mancini (1979) and then re-proposed by Prosdocimi (1983: LXI). 28 On upside-down letters see the recent contributions by Maras (2009a: 432; 2009b: 111), who

26

Ledizione digitale dei testi epigrafici come strumento di ricerca

167

dating back to the VI century BC. Since it is such an ancient phenomenon, not present in later epigraphy, the EpiDoc Guidelines do not provide for this eventuality and none of the allowed values of @rend for the <hi> element is suitable for this issue. We need to provide therefore a new one, such as upside-down, in order to render, for example, the V (line 2) and the L (line 6) in this inscription.
<div type=edition lang=la> <head>Trascrizione</head> <ab> <lb n=1 rend=down-to-up/>HOIM <lb n=2 rend=right-to-left/>ED<hi rend=reversed>M</hi> ITATKA<hi rend=upside-down>V</hi>IO <lb n=3 rend=up-to-down/><unclear reason=damage>S </unclear> <gap reason=lost extent=unknown/><unclear reason=damage>M</unclear> <lb n=4 rend=left-to-right/>O<hi rend=reversed>N</hi>IOSQETIOSD <lb n=5 rend=down-to-up/><supplied reason=lost>O</supplied> <unclear reason=damage>NO</unclear> <lb n=6 rend=right-to-left/>M<unclear reason=execution>OR<g type=dipunct/> </unclear>FI<hi rend=upside-down>L</hi>EO <lb n=7 rend=up-to-down/>D </ab> </div>

HOIM / EDMITATKAVIO / S[---]M / O NIOSQETIOSD / [O]NO / MOR : FI / LEO / D Finally, besides an example of <unclear reason=execution> discussed above, this interesting epigraphic document provides us with one of the very few cases in our corpus in which it is possible to supply a letter that is missing because of a lacuna and in order to do so the <supplied reason=lost> element is used. As a matter of fact, since most of the lacunae present in the archaic Latin inscriptions are at the beginning or at the end of a line, it is very difficult to determine the missing words or letters and in most of the cases nothing is supplied. In this case, instead, it is possible to supply an O to restore the word donum. In this brief exposition, we presented some of the problems that the corpus of the archaic Latin inscriptions poses to the encoder. Since the EpiDoc Guidelines were first designed to encode in XML relatively late epigraphic documents, our challenge is to adapt those Guidelines in order to mark up the Latin inscriptions dating from the VII to the V century BC in the best possible way. Here we showed some of the solutions we elaborated to solve the issues we encountered: some elements have been adapted to serve our purpose, others need to be created in order to render some fea-

propose an influence of a Paleo-Umbrian/Sabine model as the origin of the tendency of writing the letters upside-down.

168

Giulia Sarullo

tures of the texts. Our project, as well as the re-elaboration of the EpiDoc Guidelines, is still in progress.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANELLI, Manuela / MUSCARIELLO, Marta, 2009, Iscrizioni Latine Arcaiche A Digital Corpus of the Archaic Latin Inscriptions. In: COTTICELLI KURRAS, Paola / GRAFFI, Giorgio (a. c. di), Lingue, ethnos e popolazioni: evidenze linguistiche, biologiche e culturali, Atti del XXXII Convegno della Societ Italiana di Glottologia (Verona, 2527 ottobre 2007), Roma, Il Calamo: 157-160. BLOCH, Raymond, 1960, Lorigine du culte des Dioscures Rome. In RPh 34 (troisime srie): 182-193. BODARD, Gabriel, 2010, EpiDoc: Epigraphic Documents in XML for Publication and Interchange. In: FERAUDI-GRUNAIS, Francisca (ed.), Latin on Stone: epigraphic research and electronic archives, Lanham, Lexington Books: 101-118. BURNARD, Lou, 2009, A Gentle Introduction to XML. In: BURNARD, Lou / BAUMAN, Syd (eds.), TEI P5: Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange, available at: http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/SG.html. BURNARD, Lou / BAUMAN, Syd (eds.), 2009, TEI P5:Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange, http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/. BURNARD, Lou / SPERBERG MCQUEEN, Michael, 2006, TEI Lite: Encoding for Interchange: an introduction to the TEI - Revised for TEI P5 release, http://www.teic.org/release/doc/tei-p5-exemplars/html/teilite.doc.html. DI STEFANO MANZELLA, Ivan, 1987, Mestiere di Epigrafista. Guida alla schedatura del materiale epigrafico lapideo, Edizioni Quasar, Roma. ELLIOTT, Tom et. al., 2000-2010, The EpiDoc Collaborative for Epigraphic Documents in TEI XML, http://epidoc.sourceforge.net. ELLIOT, Tom, 2007, Conformance and Interoperability: What it means to be EpiDoc, http://www.stoa.org/epidoc/gl/5/conformance.html. EVANGELISTI, Silvia, 2010, EDR: History, Purpose, and Structure. In: FERAUDI-GRUNAIS, Francisca (ed.), Latin on Stone: epigraphic research and electronic archives, Lanham, Lexington Books: 119-134. FERAUDI-GRUNAIS, Francisca (ed.), 2010, Latin on Stone: epigraphic research and electronic archives, Lanham, Lexington Books. HARTMANN, Markus, 2005, Die frhlateinischen Inschriften und ihre Datierung, Bremen, Hempen Verlag. KRUMMREY, Hans / PANCIERA, Silvio, 1980, Criteri di edizione e segni diacritici. In Tituli 2: 205-215. MAHONEY, Anne, 2006, Epigraphy. In: BURNARD, Lou / OBRIAN OKEEFFE, Katherine / UNSWORTH, John (eds.), Electronic Textual Editing, New York, Modern Language Association of America: 224-237, MANCINI, Alberto, 1979, Liscrizione sulla base di Tivoli CIL I2, 2658. Nuova lettura, Rivista di epigrafia italica. In Studi etruschi XLVII: 370-375. MARAS, Daniele F., 2009a, Caratteri dellepigrafia latina arcaica del Lazio meridionale.

Ledizione digitale dei testi epigrafici come strumento di ricerca

169

In: DRAGO TROCCOLI, Luciana (a cura di), Il Lazio dai Colli Albani ai Monti Lepini tra preistoria ed et moderna, Quasar, Roma: 431-439. MARAS, Daniele F., 2009b, Novit sulla diffusione dellalfabeto latino nel Lazio arcaico. In: MANNINO, Francesco / MANNINO, Marco / MARAS, Daniele F. (a cura di), Theodor Mommsen e il Lazio antico. Giornata di Studi in memoria dellillustre storico, epigrafista e giurista (Terracina, Sala Valadier, 3 aprile 2004), LErma di Bretschneider, Roma: 105-118. MUSCARIELLO, Marta, 2008, Iscrizioni Latine Arcaiche: a Digital Corpus of the Archaic Latin Inscriptions, Alessandria 2: 213-217. PANCIERA, Silvio, 2006a, Segni diacritici: riflessioni e proposte. In: PANCIERA, Silvio, Epigrafi, Epigrafia, Epigrafisti. Scritti vari editi e inediti (1956-2005) con note complementari e indici, Volume II, Edizioni Quasar, Roma: 1711-1717. PANCIERA, Silvio, 2006b, I segni diacritici: dieci anni dopo. In: PANCIERA, Silvio, Epigrafi, Epigrafia, Epigrafisti. Scritti vari editi e inediti (1956-2005) con note complementari e indici, Volume II, Edizioni Quasar, Roma: 1717-1726. PERUZZI, Emilio, 1963, Liscrizione di Vendia. In MAIA XV: 89-92. PERUZZI, Emilio, 1998, Civilt greca nel Lazio preromano, Olschki Editore, Firenze: 97108. PROSDOCIMI, Aldo Luigi, 1979, Studi sul latino arcaico. In Studi Etruschi XLVII: 173221. PROSDOCIMI, Aldo Luigi, 1983, Appendice II. La pi antica documentazione. Nota di aggiornamento. In: DEVOTO, Giacomo, Storia della lingua di Roma, anastatic reprint, Cappelli Editore, Bologna: LV-XCVIII. TISSONI, Francesco, 2008, EpiDoc e lepigrafia latina sul web. Il progetto Iscrizioni Latine Arcaiche. In ACME LXI, fascicolo III: 29-49.

Giulia Sarullo Istituto di Scienze delluomo, del linguaggio e dellambiente Universit IULM - Milano giulia.sarullo@iulm.it