Retain or correct errors when transcribing?

[Brett Rawlins]

I recently began transcribing a handwritten life history and was once again confronted with the question of whether or not to correct errors in it. This is a problem I’ve wrestled with before, so I thought I’d solicit thoughts from the community.

When transcribing a handwritten document, should I retain the errors? I’m talking about things like spelling, grammar, and punctuation, not factual errors. Retaining the errors can make the resulting document harder to read, but it also captures something about the person who wrote it, though not very flattering.

Sometimes I’m tempted to make corrections for the sake of readability. For example:

1. Often I’ll find run-on sentences with no punctuation, or multiple sentences joined with commas. I could easily insert periods and break them up into logical sentences.

2. Sometimes spelling or word choice mistakes can be confusing:
toled = told
untell = until
thoes = those
latter = later
there | their | they’re

3. Sometimes I’d like to insert an omitted word or clarification:
plenty of [r]oom
there would [be] so many
out behin[d] the hay stack
thought he had cut my hand into [in two]

Is it more important to preserve the integrity of the original? Or is it better to correct obvious mistakes so the reader can focus on the story without stumbling over the language?

[Michael Talibard]

Suggestion (if you have time): create a two-column-page document; transcribe it all just as it is in column 1; copy and paste into column 2; make corrections there.

[Bob White]

If I were preparing a separate document, I likely would do something as Michael suggests. However, for Notes (or whichever other part of Reunion), I think the integrity of the original should be inviolate. Thus, you will find entries in my Notes that read something like:

In a letter, dated July 4, 1900, from John Jones to Nancy Jones, his wife, John said: "When thoes nemy solders came over the rise, I toeld the lootentant......"

Always in quote marks so that a later reader of my work knows that is what the original said.

[Nic Maennling]

Originally Posted by Brett Rawlins

I recently began transcribing a handwritten life history and was once again confronted with the question of whether or not to correct errors in it. This is a problem I’ve wrestled with before, so I thought I’d solicit thoughts from the community.

When transcribing a handwritten document, should I retain the errors? I’m talking about things like spelling, grammar, and punctuation, not factual errors. Retaining the errors can make the resulting document harder to read, but it also captures something about the person who wrote it, though not very flattering.

Sometimes I’m tempted to make corrections for the sake of readability. For example:

1. Often I’ll find run-on sentences with no punctuation, or multiple sentences joined with commas. I could easily insert periods and break them up into logical sentences.

2. Sometimes spelling or word choice mistakes can be confusing:
toled = told
untell = until
thoes = those
latter = later
there | their | they’re

3. Sometimes I’d like to insert an omitted word or clarification:
plenty of [r]oom
there would [be] so many
out behin[d] the hay stack
thought he had cut my hand into [in two]

Is it more important to preserve the integrity of the original? Or is it better to correct obvious mistakes so the reader can focus on the story without stumbling over the language?

Dear Brett,

If you are transcribing a document under no circumstances should you make any corrections. From the 'net I quote:

"Transcribing

In the field of genealogy, a transcription is an EXACT copy of a source document. The key word here is EXACT. Everything should be rendered exactly as found in the original source - spelling, punctuation, abbreviations and the arrangement of text. If a word is misspelled in the original, then it should be misspelled in your transcription. If the deed you're transcribing has every other word capitalized, then your transcription should as well. If you aren't sure of a word or phrase then flag it with a question mark in square brackets. If part of a word is unclear, then underline the letters which are unclear. If an entire phrase, sentence or paragraph is unreadable, then indicate the length of the passage.

Transcription Tip: If you're using a word processor for your transcription, be sure that the spell check/correct option is turned off. Otherwise the software may automatically correct those mispellings you're trying to preserve !"

If you feel a need to edit and correct a document then you need to say so up front. One has to be careful here as you may make additional errors or take something out of context. Even in your letter you appear to have forgotten about the apostrophe which I feel a need to correct !

Nic Maennling
Lanark, Ontario, Canada

[Nick]

I transcribe documents exactly as you have done in your third example:

plenty of [r]oom
there would [be] so many
out behin[d] the hay stack
thought he had cut my hand into [in two]

This preserves the original text and simultaneously makes it readable.

[Frank Rader]

Me? I clean up and clear up as much as I can including spellings. My intent is a clear, easily read document. If the original source can be scanned and adds value, I scan and attach it. I note in sources that I've updated the information.

Though not in Notes, a common situation is a Birth: 1/1/1801, Born in Rowan (now Catawba) County, North Carolilna. I record that as Date//Catawba County, North Carolina//[Memo] Then Rowan County, North Carolina.

[Mary Arthur]

Originally Posted by Brett Rawlins

I recently began transcribing a handwritten life history and was once again confronted with the question of whether or not to correct errors in it. This is a problem I’ve wrestled with before, so I thought I’d solicit thoughts from the community.

When transcribing a handwritten document, should I retain the errors?
Is it more important to preserve the integrity of the original? Or is it better to correct obvious mistakes so the reader can focus on the story without stumbling over the language?

You have to decide which is more important to you, and what you want - but . . . Please, make clear what you have done, every time! and include the original. Sometimes, the 'correction' you make changes the 'fact', and someone else may have knowledge that makes the 'fact' useful.

[budzilla]

Originally Posted by Michael Talibard

Suggestion (if you have time): create a two-column-page document; transcribe it all just as it is in column 1; copy and paste into column 2; make corrections there.

I think this is an elegant solution. Not only do you transcribe the document with its original flaws intact, but you have a ready, corrected reference adjacent to the original. Nice idea.