romikgosai/squad_modified_2 huggingface dataset:
The process of selectio resembles eclectic textual criticism, but applied to a restricted set of hypothetical hyparchetypes. The steps of examinatio and emendatio resemble copy-text editing. In fact, the other techniques can be seen as special cases of stemmatics in which a rigorous family history of the text cannot be determined but only approximated. If it seems that one manuscript is by far the best text, then copy text editing is appropriate, and if it seems that a group of manuscripts are good, then eclecticism on that group would be proper.

Q1: Which steps most closely resembles copy-text editing?
A1: examinatio and emendatio
Q2: What process is best used when only one manuscript is viable?
A2: copy text editing
Q3: What process is best used when there are a number of viable manuscripts available?
A3: eclecticism
The critic Joseph Bédier (1864–1938) launched a particularly withering attack on stemmatics in 1928. He surveyed editions of medieval French texts that were produced with the stemmatic method, and found that textual critics tended overwhelmingly to produce trees divided into just two branches. He concluded that this outcome was unlikely to have occurred by chance, and that therefore, the method was tending to produce bipartite stemmas regardless of the actual history of the witnesses. He suspected that editors tended to favor trees with two branches, as this would maximize the opportunities for editorial judgment (as there would be no third branch to "break the tie" whenever the witnesses disagreed). He also noted that, for many works, more than one reasonable stemma could be postulated, suggesting that the method was not as rigorous or as scientific as its proponents had claimed.

Q1: What was Joseph Bédier's main criticism of the stemmatic method?
A1: critics tended overwhelmingly to produce trees divided into just two branches.
Q2: Why is a methos that only produces two branches seen as inferior?
A2: the method was tending to produce bipartite stemmas regardless of the actual history of the witnesses.
Q3: To what did Joseph Bédier attribute the prevalence of the stemmatic method?
A3: editors tended to favor trees with two branches
Q4: Why would editors only want two alternative branches when analyzing a text?
A4: this would maximize the opportunities for editorial judgment
Q5: What was the final implication of Joseph Bédier's analysis of the stemmatic method?
A5: the method was not as rigorous or as scientific as its proponents had claimed.
The stemmatic method's final step is emendatio, also sometimes referred to as "conjectural emendation." But in fact, the critic employs conjecture at every step of the process. Some of the method's rules that are designed to reduce the exercise of editorial judgment do not necessarily produce the correct result. For example, where there are more than two witnesses at the same level of the tree, normally the critic will select the dominant reading. However, it may be no more than fortuitous that more witnesses have survived that present a particular reading. A plausible reading that occurs less often may, nevertheless, be the correct one.

Q1: What is the last step in the stemmatic method?
A1: emendatio
Q2: At what point can a critic using the stemmatic become less concerned with critical analysis?
A2: the critic employs conjecture at every step of the process
Q3: Why may the dominant reading may be the weaker reading?
A3: , it may be no more than fortuitous that more witnesses have survived that present a particular reading
The bibliographer Ronald B. McKerrow introduced the term copy-text in his 1904 edition of the works of Thomas Nashe, defining it as "the text used in each particular case as the basis of mine." McKerrow was aware of the limitations of the stemmatic method, and believed it was more prudent to choose one particular text that was thought to be particularly reliable, and then to emend it only where the text was obviously corrupt. The French critic Joseph Bédier likewise became disenchanted with the stemmatic method, and concluded that the editor should choose the best available text, and emend it as little as possible.

Q1: When was the term copy-text introduced?
A1: 1904
Q2: What was the initial definition of copy-text?
A2: the text used in each particular case as the basis of mine
Q3: Explain the process used by McKerrow as an alternative to the stemmaic method
A3: choose one particular text that was thought to be particularly reliable, and then to emend it only where the text was obviously corrupt.
By 1939, in his Prolegomena for the Oxford Shakespeare, McKerrow had changed his mind about this approach, as he feared that a later edition – even if it contained authorial corrections – would "deviate more widely than the earliest print from the author's original manuscript." He therefore concluded that the correct procedure would be "produced by using the earliest "good" print as copy-text and inserting into it, from the first edition which contains them, such corrections as appear to us to be derived from the author." But, fearing the arbitrary exercise of editorial judgment, McKerrow stated that, having concluded that a later edition had substantive revisions attributable to the author, "we must accept all the alterations of that edition, saving any which seem obvious blunders or misprints."

Q1: Why did McKerrow alter his previous method of criticism?
A1: deviate more widely than the earliest print from the author's original manuscript."
Q2: How did McKerrow alter his approach to copy-text analysis?
A2: inserting into it, from the first edition which contains them, such corrections as appear to us to be derived from the author."
Q3: What did McKerrow concede about his new copy-text method?
A3: we must accept all the alterations of that edition, saving any which seem obvious blunders or misprints
Q4: What work was the first to see McKerrow use his new method?
A4: Prolegomena for the Oxford Shakespeare
Although Greg argued that an editor should be free to use his judgment to choose between competing substantive readings, he suggested that an editor should defer to the copy-text when "the claims of two readings ... appear to be exactly balanced. ... In such a case, while there can be no logical reason for giving preference to the copy-text, in practice, if there is no reason for altering its reading, the obvious thing seems to be to let it stand." The "exactly balanced" variants are said to be indifferent.

Q1: Are there times when an editor's judgement should be deferred?
A1: the claims of two readings ... appear to be exactly balanced
Q2: What should one do when two readings are contradictory but balanced?
A2: if there is no reason for altering its reading, the obvious thing seems to be to let it stand.
Q3: What do editors call variants that are exactly balanced?
A3: indifferent
Whereas Greg had limited his illustrative examples to English Renaissance drama, where his expertise lay, Bowers argued that the rationale was "the most workable editorial principle yet contrived to produce a critical text that is authoritative in the maximum of its details whether the author be Shakespeare, Dryden, Fielding, Nathaniel Hawthorne, or Stephen Crane. The principle is sound without regard for the literary period." For works where an author's manuscript survived – a case Greg had not considered – Bowers concluded that the manuscript should generally serve as copy-text. Citing the example of Nathaniel Hawthorne, he noted:

Q1: Is the idea formed by Greg limited to a specific time period?
A1: The principle is sound without regard for the literary period.
Q2: What will an editor do in the case where an author's work was not wiped out?
A2: the manuscript should generally serve as copy-text
Q3: What where the limitations of Greg's analyses?
A3: English Renaissance drama
Q4: What is the main criticism of Greg's work?
A4: works where an author's manuscript survived
McKerrow had articulated textual criticism's goal in terms of "our ideal of an author's fair copy of his work in its final state". Bowers asserted that editions founded on Greg's method would "represent the nearest approximation in every respect of the author's final intentions." Bowers stated similarly that the editor's task is to "approximate as nearly as possible an inferential authorial fair copy." Tanselle notes that, "Textual criticism ... has generally been undertaken with a view to reconstructing, as accurately as possible, the text finally intended by the author".

Q1: What are editors trying to ultimately accomplish?
A1: our ideal of an author's fair copy of his work in its final state
Q2: If an editor can't achieve an exact reproduction of an authors work, what should be the goal?
A2: approximate as nearly as possible an inferential authorial fair copy
Q3: What did Bower's say about Greg's method?
A3: represent the nearest approximation in every respect of the author's final intentions
Q4: What did Tanselle say about textual criticism?
A4: has generally been undertaken with a view to reconstructing, as accurately as possible, the text finally intended by the author
Bowers and Tanselle argue for rejecting textual variants that an author inserted at the suggestion of others. Bowers said that his edition of Stephen Crane's first novel, Maggie, presented "the author's final and uninfluenced artistic intentions." In his writings, Tanselle refers to "unconstrained authorial intention" or "an author's uninfluenced intentions." This marks a departure from Greg, who had merely suggested that the editor inquire whether a later reading "is one that the author can reasonably be supposed to have substituted for the former", not implying any further inquiry as to why the author had made the change.

Q1: Who argued against works where the author listens to input from others?
A1: Bowers and Tanselle
Q2: Who wanted to determine why an author made changes to a work?
A2: Tanselle
Q3: Does Greg believe a later work can be substituted for a earlier one?
A3: a later reading "is one that the author can reasonably be supposed to have substituted for the former
Q4: What idea did Tanselle champion?
A4: unconstrained authorial intention
Bowers confronted a similar problem in his edition of Maggie. Crane originally printed the novel privately in 1893. To secure commercial publication in 1896, Crane agreed to remove profanity, but he also made stylistic revisions. Bowers's approach was to preserve the stylistic and literary changes of 1896, but to revert to the 1893 readings where he believed that Crane was fulfilling the publisher's intention rather than his own. There were, however, intermediate cases that could reasonably have been attributed to either intention, and some of Bowers's choices came under fire – both as to his judgment, and as to the wisdom of conflating readings from the two different versions of Maggie.

Q1: What alterations did Crane make to secure commercial publication?
A1: remove profanity, but he also made stylistic revisions
Q2: What was Bower's first step in editing multiple works into a single product?
A2: to preserve the stylistic and literary changes of 1896
Q3: What was Bower's second step in editing multiple works into a single product?
A3: to revert to the 1893 readings where he believed that Crane was fulfilling the publisher's intention rather than his own
Q4: What was one of the criticisms Bowers faced after editing Maggie?
A4: his judgment
Q5: I what year was Maggie printed for commercial use?
A5: 1896
Q6: What was the first step Bowers took in editing a single work with two versions?
A6: to preserve the stylistic and literary changes of 1896,
Q7: What was the second step Bowers took in editing a single work with two versions?
A7: to revert to the 1893 readings where he believed that Crane was fulfilling the publisher's intention
Q8: What changes were made for the commercial publication of Maggie?
A8: to remove profanity, but he also made stylistic revisions
Q9: When was Maggie first published?
A9: 1893
Some critics believe that a clear-text edition gives the edited text too great a prominence, relegating textual variants to appendices that are difficult to use, and suggesting a greater sense of certainty about the established text than it deserves. As Shillingsburg notes, "English scholarly editions have tended to use notes at the foot of the text page, indicating, tacitly, a greater modesty about the "established" text and drawing attention more forcibly to at least some of the alternative forms of the text".

Q1: Are appendices easy to use for the average reader?
A1: appendices that are difficult to use,
Q2: Can a reader be certain of the validity of information found in a clear-text edition?
A2: suggesting a greater sense of certainty about the established text than it deserves
Q3: How do most editors work around the reference problems of clear-text editing?
A3: notes at the foot of the text page
Q4: Where can a reader find more information on text variants after noticing a footnote?
A4: appendices
Cladistics is a technique borrowed from biology, where it was originally named phylogenetic systematics by Willi Hennig. In biology, the technique is used to determine the evolutionary relationships between different species. In its application in textual criticism, the text of a number of different manuscripts is entered into a computer, which records all the differences between them. The manuscripts are then grouped according to their shared characteristics. The difference between cladistics and more traditional forms of statistical analysis is that, rather than simply arranging the manuscripts into rough groupings according to their overall similarity, cladistics assumes that they are part of a branching family tree and uses that assumption to derive relationships between them. This makes it more like an automated approach to stemmatics. However, where there is a difference, the computer does not attempt to decide which reading is closer to the original text, and so does not indicate which branch of the tree is the "root"—which manuscript tradition is closest to the original. Other types of evidence must be used for that purpose.

Q1: What is the biological basis for Cladistics?
A1: to determine the evolutionary relationships between different species
Q2: How is evolution applied to textual criticism?
A2: manuscripts are then grouped according to their shared characteristics
Q3: How is cladistics similar to the stemmatic method?
A3: cladistics assumes that they are part of a branching family tree
Q4: What is the main difference between cladistics and stemmatics?
A4: does not indicate which branch of the tree is the "root"
Although some earlier unpublished studies had been prepared, not until the early 1970s was true textual criticism applied to the Book of Mormon. At that time BYU Professor Ellis Rasmussen and his associates were asked by the LDS Church to begin preparation for a new edition of the Holy Scriptures. One aspect of that effort entailed digitizing the text and preparing appropriate footnotes, another aspect required establishing the most dependable text. To that latter end, Stanley R. Larson (a Rasmussen graduate student) set about applying modern text critical standards to the manuscripts and early editions of the Book of Mormon as his thesis project – which he completed in 1974. To that end, Larson carefully examined the Original Manuscript (the one dictated by Joseph Smith to his scribes) and the Printer’s Manuscript (the copy Oliver Cowdery prepared for the Printer in 1829–1830), and compared them with the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions of the Book of Mormon to determine what sort of changes had occurred over time and to make judgments as to which readings were the most original. Larson proceeded to publish a useful set of well-argued articles on the phenomena which he had discovered. Many of his observations were included as improvements in the 1981 LDS edition of the Book of Mormon.

Q1: When did textual criticism applied to the Book of Mormon?
A1: the early 1970s
Q2: What was one portion of preparing a new edition of the Holy Scriptures?
A2: digitizing the text and preparing appropriate footnotes
Q3: How was the most reliable version of the Holy Scriptures determined?
A3: applying modern text critical standards to the manuscripts
Q4: When did Larson finish his project?
A4: 1974
Q5: Whose observations were included in the 1981 publication of the Book of Mormon?
A5: Larson
By 1979, with the establishment of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) as a California non-profit research institution, an effort led by Robert F. Smith began to take full account of Larson’s work and to publish a Critical Text of the Book of Mormon. Thus was born the FARMS Critical Text Project which published the first volume of the 3-volume Book of Mormon Critical Text in 1984. The third volume of that first edition was published in 1987, but was already being superseded by a second, revised edition of the entire work, greatly aided through the advice and assistance of then Yale doctoral candidate Grant Hardy, Dr. Gordon C. Thomasson, Professor John W. Welch (the head of FARMS), Professor Royal Skousen, and others too numerous to mention here. However, these were merely preliminary steps to a far more exacting and all-encompassing project.

Q1: What is FARMS?
A1: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies
Q2: Who spearheaded the Critical Text of the Book of Mormon project?
A2: Robert F. Smith
Q3: How many years did it take to publish all three volumes of the Book of Mormon Critical Text?
A3: the first volume of the 3-volume Book of Mormon Critical Text in 1984. The third volume of that first edition was published in 1987
Q4: Was the third volume of the first edition deemed sufficient?
A4: The third volume of that first edition was published in 1987, but was already being superseded by a second, revised edition of the entire work
Q5: Who is the head of FARMS?
A5: Professor John W. Welch
In 1988, with that preliminary phase of the project completed, Professor Skousen took over as editor and head of the FARMS Critical Text of the Book of Mormon Project and proceeded to gather still scattered fragments of the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon and to have advanced photographic techniques applied to obtain fine readings from otherwise unreadable pages and fragments. He also closely examined the Printer’s Manuscript (owned by the Community of Christ—RLDS Church in Independence, Missouri) for differences in types of ink or pencil, in order to determine when and by whom they were made. He also collated the various editions of the Book of Mormon down to the present to see what sorts of changes have been made through time.

Q1: When was phase one completed?
A1: 1988
Q2: Who took over after the preliminary phase?
A2: Professor Skousen
Q3: Why did Professor Skousen gather fragments and have them analyzed?
A3: to obtain fine readings
Q4: What process what used to study the gathered fragments?
A4: advanced photographic techniques
Q5: On what did Skousen analyze ink and pencil remnants?
A5: Printer’s Manuscript
Shemaryahu Talmon, who summarized the amount of consensus and genetic relation to the Urtext of the Hebrew Bible, concluded that major divergences which intrinsically affect the sense are extremely rare. As far as the Hebrew Bible referenced by Old Testament is concerned, almost all of the textual variants are fairly insignificant and hardly affect any doctrine. Professor Douglas Stuart states: "It is fair to say that the verses, chapters, and books of the Bible would read largely the same, and would leave the same impression with the reader, even if one adopted virtually every possible alternative reading to those now serving as the basis for current English translations."

Q1: How common are variations in text that alter the meaning of the Urtext of the Hebrew Bible?
A1: extremely rare
Q2: To what degree do variations in the Old Testament alter the meaning?
A2: hardly affect any doctrine
Q3: Who claims that the Old Testament is essentially the same throughout all variations?
A3: Professor Douglas Stuart
Q4: How many variations of the Old Testament offer the same meaning?
A4: virtually every possible alternative reading
While textual criticism developed into a discipline of thorough analysis of the Bible — both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament — scholars also use it to determine the original content of classic texts, such as Plato's Republic. There are far fewer witnesses to classical texts than to the Bible, so scholars can use stemmatics and, in some cases, copy text editing. However, unlike the New Testament where the earliest witnesses are within 200 years of the original, the earliest existing manuscripts of most classical texts were written about a millennium after their composition. All things being equal, textual scholars expect that a larger time gap between an original and a manuscript means more changes in the text.

Q1: Does the Bible or Plato's Republic have more witnesses?
A1: There are far fewer witnesses to classical texts than to the Bible
Q2: What's the gap between original Christian texts and subsequent editions of the same works?
A2: within 200 years
Q3: What's the gap between original classical texts and subsequent editions of the same works?
A3: about a millennium after their composition
Q4: How does the expanse of time correlate to authenticity with regard to original and subsequent versions of texts?
A4: a larger time gap between an original and a manuscript means more changes in the text.
Scientific and critical editions can be protected by copyright as works of authorship if enough creativity/originality is provided. The mere addition of a word, or substitution of a term with another one believed to be more correct, usually does not achieve such level of originality/creativity. All the notes accounting for the analysis and why and how such changes have been made represent a different work autonomously copyrightable if the other requirements are satisfied. In the European Union critical and scientific editions may be protected also by the relevant neighboring right that protects critical and scientific publications of public domain works as made possible by art. 5 of the Copyright Term Directive. Not all EU member States have transposed art. 5 into national law.

Q1: What is the criteria for copyright?
A1: if enough creativity/originality is provided
Q2: What minor things can be included and not invalidate a copyright?
A2: The mere addition of a word, or substitution of a term with another one believed to be more correct
Q3: Are footnotes included in the copyright of the original work?
A3: All the notes accounting for the analysis and why and how such changes have been made represent a different work autonomously copyrightable
Q4: What rights do scientific publications in the EU enjoy?
A4: the relevant neighboring right that protects critical and scientific publications of public domain works
A gramophone record (phonograph record in American English) or vinyl record, commonly known as a "record", is an analogue sound storage medium in the form of a flat polyvinyl chloride (previously shellac) disc with an inscribed, modulated spiral groove. The groove usually starts near the periphery and ends near the center of the disc. Phonograph records are generally described by their diameter in inches (12", 10", 7"), the rotational speed in rpm at which they are played (16 2⁄3, 33 1⁄3, 45, 78), and their time capacity resulting from a combination of those parameters (LP – long playing 33 1⁄3 rpm, SP – 78 rpm single, EP – 12-inch single or extended play, 33 or 45 rpm); their reproductive quality or level of fidelity (high-fidelity, orthophonic, full-range, etc.), and the number of audio channels provided (mono, stereo, quad, etc.).

Q1: What does LP stand for when it comes to time capacity?
A1: long playing
Q2: What are common diameters found in phonograph records?
A2: 12", 10", 7"
Q3: What is a gramophone or 'vinyl' record?
A3: analogue sound storage medium
Q4: Where does the groove on a vinyl record typically start?
A4: near the periphery
Q5: In what method is the rotational speed measured in?
A5: rpm