D. Emendation
This is not currently part of the peer-reviewed material of the project. Do not cite as a research publication.
1. An essentially conservative approach to editing will be adopted.
2. Emendations should not normally be made for metrical reasons if they go against the evidence of all mss; metrical abnormalities should be mentioned in the Notes. Where, however, there is only one ms. (e.g. Flateyjarbók), and it contains a reading clearly corrupt on metrical grounds, an emendation may be introduced, and explained in the Notes.
3. Similarly, a very strong case would have to be made for emending against the ms. evidence where there are unusual features of:
a. grammar, e.g. unparalleled pl. forms; alternative genders;
b. syntax, e.g. use of acc. instead of dat. with certain verbs;
c. diction / style, e.g. ‘incomplete’ kennings, noun phrases in apposition.
See further section E below.
4. With a more conservative approach to editing than Skj, it should be possible to build up a more exact picture as to what norms exist, and exchange of ideas about possible instances of features which may hitherto have been under-recognised is encouraged.