Kathy wrote:
>The letters are fascinating to read but having seen the originals, much was
lost in the transcriptions.  ... Hopkins Nowlin was not terribly literate --

his spelling and grammar left
much to be desired; he wrote as he spoke.  The first time I read the
original letters I could almost hear him talking; the transcriptions are,
unfortunately, crisp and clean -- no flavor at all, a real shame.


Kathy, your several posts on these letters have been enlightening. Thanks
for alerting us to them. I share your hope that the letters will become
public.

Re the "transcriptions" of which you write:  If I understand you correctly,
the derivatives you describe are not *transcribed* letters, but *edited*
letters. To transcribe is to copy the text as precisely as possible. Editing
is to make emendations that, in the editor's judgment, "improves upon" the
original.

I mention this only because others on the list may be considering
transcribing projects of their own. You've done a valuable service in
pointing out why the original writer's voice should have been preserved.

Elizabeth

-------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
*Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian*
*QuickSheet! Citing Online Historical Resources, Evidence! Style*
*Professional Genealogy: A Manual for Researchers, Writers,
     Editors, Lecturers, and Librarians*

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html