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