SC - A quesion on primary sources

[LrdRas at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/8/98 5:23:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
g.walli at infoengine.com writes:

<< can I justifiably list Scully's or Renfrow's or Hiatt's or
 Cariadoc&Elizabeth's printed originals as primary sources >>
Some of these works couod be listed as primary sources. For instance the Old
English texts in Cariadoc's collections. IMO, the translations into English
from Arabic, French, German or whatever would be secondary sources. Secondery
sources are not a bad thing. Now when we get to people like Vehling that is a
bad thing. The History of Food and other sources would be Tertiary or hearsay
unless they priovide earlier sources for their suppositions. These are good as
supporting documents but bad as primary references or 'proofs' for any
particular theory.

Example> 
Taillevant in the original French-primary
Taillevant translation by Whoever Says They're an Expert, fancy letters-
secondary source
A line of Taillevant occuring in another document- secondary source
Mention of something read in  Taillevant manuscripts- no documents quoted-
tertiary
Mention that something was done in the 14th century (no reference given)-
hearsay

Hope I got it right. Are you as confused as I am? :-)

Ras. 
============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================