VMs: RE: Numbered transcription

["GC" <glenclaston@xxxxxxxxx>]

GC wrote:
> >I'd have to agree that the 'word' is not the easiest
> thing to sort
> >out sometimes, so numbering the 'word' may have very
> little use.

To which Nick responded:
> Not true - if you'd like a second (or 3rd, or... nth)
> pair of eyes to check
> over your (or anyone else's) transcription, having a
> word index (as well as
> a line index) could be a very big help to tracking down
> inconsistencies.

Nick,
I have to admit after working with the concept for awhile, that
for proofing, numbered words does has some use, especially in
clarity.  For instance, may I propose a shorthand?  Something like

2r.8.8 <ee>=<e,e>   or
2r.8.8 {C}={c,c}.

This would be short for "At Folio 2r, line 8, word 8, you have EVA
<ee> written as one glyph (also written as VGBT {C} ), when I
think this should be EVA <e,e> as two glyphs, (which can also be
written as VGBT {c,c}.)

Either proofing language works as long as they're identified with
<> for EVA and {} for VGBT, although I expect we'll probably be
using EVA for most of the discussion.  This might be a good way of
submitting long lists of proofing corrections and an easy way to
maintain them in a list for comparison?

GC