Subject: computer programs update and a textual problem

From: "Vinton A. Dearing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 16:59:20 PST

I have updated most of the computer programs I use for making stemmas 
and have made available on my web page
   http://englishwww.humnet.ucla.edu
The updates are QPREP, QRING, QSYN, QTREE and QARCH. QANOM is 
unchanged. I am not completely satisfied with QANOM and QARCH, and 
would welcome comments from users -- and about the other programs 
also.
     In retesting the programs I ran across the following set of 
variant readings in II John 6
1 AUTOU AUTH ESTIN H ENTOLH KAQWS HKOUSATE AP ARCHS INA EN
2 AUTOU INA* KAQWS* AUTH ESTIN H ENTO# AUTOU INA KAQWS HKOUSATE AP 
ARCHS INA EN   *deleted by first hand  ## sic
3 AUTOU AUTH H ENTOLH ESTIN KAQWS HKOUSATE AP ARCHS INA EN
4 AUTOU AUTH H ENTOLH ESTIN INA KAQWS HKOUSATE AP ARCHS INA EN
5 AUTOU AUTH H ENTOLH ESTIN INA KAQWS HKOUSATE AP ARCHS EN
 It looks to me as if 2 were copied from a manuscript that had AUTOU 
INA KAQWS in the text and AUTH ESTIN H ENTOLH in the margin with a 
lemma AUTOU to show where it was to be inserted -- and that the 
copyist of 2 put the marginal note into his text lemma and all, 
though I should have expected the lemma to have preceded instead of 
followed the omitted material.
  I think AUTH ESTIN H ENTOLH resulted when a copyist working from 
AUTH H ENTOLH ESTIN skipped the H ENTOLH by homoeteleuton and made 
up for his mistake at once.
  I don't know what to make of the omission or duplication of INA. 
  I would welcome any remarks, including agreement that the last 
problem is insoluble, if that is your conclusion.
     Vinton A. Dearing