Hello to all! In Book XVI, Chap. 14 of his history William of Tyre is relating events in the city of Edessa. He begins this chapter with this sentence:
Dum haec circa nos geruntur, in partibus Edessanis factum miserabile, scriptis innodari dignum, accidit, quod ut plenius intelligatur, altius aliquantulum repetenda est historia.
The word I'm questioning here is "innodari". For "innodo" I find "entangle, implicate", so I could see "scriptis innodari dignum" meaning "worthy of being included in this history."
However, both of the translations I have simply translate this as "worthy of being recorded/related", which leads me to believe that the word could be amended to "innotari". I have access to two other versions of the text, both of which give "innodari", but both of them very rarely have a different reading from the version that I use.
I've long suspected that the two translators in question had a different version of the text, or at least had access to an apparatus criticus that listed alternative readings, because quite often they don't seem to be translating the text exactly as I have it. E.g., only a couple of days ago I encountered the word "procurabat", which I'm certain had to be "procurrabat" since I found it translated as "rushed at", which made perfect sense in context, and since in any case I could make no sense at all of "procurabat".
So I suppose the only question I'm asking here is, given a choice, would you prefer "innotari" or are you OK with "innodari"?
Dum haec circa nos geruntur, in partibus Edessanis factum miserabile, scriptis innodari dignum, accidit, quod ut plenius intelligatur, altius aliquantulum repetenda est historia.
The word I'm questioning here is "innodari". For "innodo" I find "entangle, implicate", so I could see "scriptis innodari dignum" meaning "worthy of being included in this history."
However, both of the translations I have simply translate this as "worthy of being recorded/related", which leads me to believe that the word could be amended to "innotari". I have access to two other versions of the text, both of which give "innodari", but both of them very rarely have a different reading from the version that I use.
I've long suspected that the two translators in question had a different version of the text, or at least had access to an apparatus criticus that listed alternative readings, because quite often they don't seem to be translating the text exactly as I have it. E.g., only a couple of days ago I encountered the word "procurabat", which I'm certain had to be "procurrabat" since I found it translated as "rushed at", which made perfect sense in context, and since in any case I could make no sense at all of "procurabat".
So I suppose the only question I'm asking here is, given a choice, would you prefer "innotari" or are you OK with "innodari"?
