ATLAS OF LANGUAGE

AT-ADD-20261020-0039 · ATLAS 261

Conjecture in textual criticism

In the textual-critical focus selected here, a conjecture proposes a reading for a suspected damaged or corrupt passage without an actual textual witness supplying that reading at the place concerned. The proposal, its grounds and its intervention status must remain distinguishable from the transmitted text.

Part of the subject path Language Change, Contact and Diversity

Why is this entry in the Atlas?

A · Analytical concept R1 · Distinct contribution to understanding

Teaches a precise boundary between evidence and reconstruction, indispensable to responsible source work without pretending every gap can be closed.

Colours and admission grounds

The rectangular label identifies the entry function: F – linguistic figure or procedure; A – analytical concept; G – foundational concept; E – selected concrete case. The rounded badge indicates the admission ground: R1 – distinctive contribution; R2 – necessary foundation; R3 – justified illustrative case. This editorial rationale explains the current selection rather than claiming an undocumented original selection history.

Explanation

An elegant restoration can make a damaged passage readable, but readability is not proof of authenticity. Once the restored words are presented without marking, a helpful hypothesis can become a fictitious source. The reader loses the ability to tell what was found from what an editor supplied. Responsible conjecture therefore preserves the transmitted form, explains the suspected problem and compares serious alternatives. Unusual grammar may be genuine. A gap may need to remain open. The goal is not to produce an uninterrupted text at any cost, but to offer a revisable account of why a proposed reading deserves consideration.

Movement of thought

1. Document the transmitted wording unchanged. 2. Explain why a problem is suspected. 3. Construct linguistically and contextually possible readings. 4. Compare transmission, context and alternatives. 5. Mark intervention and uncertainty, revising when evidence changes.

Scientific use case

Textual criticism compares witnesses, contextual fit and plausible transmission processes. It evaluates a marked proposal rather than creating an imaginary new witness.

Example

Invented note: 'The box remains [illegible] in the corridor.' 'Until tomorrow' and 'no longer' could fit different contexts. Neither is discovered merely because it yields a grammatical sentence. A reading edition should retain the damage and label possible restorations as proposals.

Counterexample

A plausible guess is not a recovered manuscript. Conjecture does not authorise smoothing sources to suit one's taste. Traditions draw boundaries between conjecture and emendation differently, and a framework from one school should not become universal by omission.

Distinction

Quotation reproduces a source; paraphrase reformulates it. Conjectural emendation intervenes in a suspected defect. Mathematical conjecture and philosophical accounts of conjectural knowledge concern other uses and remain distinct.

Effect on thought and perception

The transition from surviving evidence to reconstruction remains visible and therefore corrigible.

Resonance

A gap can invite participation in understanding. The desire for a complete sentence need not compel an editor to fill it.

Etymology

The inherited term concerns a reasoned supposition. Its textual-critical specialisation is narrower than every guess or informal suspicion.

Provenance

The HWdR dossier records several historical fields of use. The Atlas's selected editorial focus does not replace those other histories or claim complete independent verification of their primary works.

Cite this entry

Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Conjecture in textual criticism“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-ADD-20261020-0039. ATLAS 261, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-ADD-20261020-0039

https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-ADD-20261020-0039

The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-20. Include your access date for precise references.

Guiding question

Where does the surviving evidence end and our reconstruction begin?

Five coordinate questions

These descriptions explain the entry. They are not controlled register values and do not generate shared register results.

Where can the process be observed?

Invented note: 'The box remains [illegible] in the corridor.' 'Until tomorrow' and 'no longer' could fit different contexts. Neither is discovered merely because it yields a grammatical sentence. A reading edition should retain the damage and label possible restorations as proposals.

What happens to the material?

Document the transmitted wording unchanged.

Explain why a problem is suspected.

Construct linguistically and contextually possible readings.

Compare transmission, context and alternatives.

Mark intervention and uncertainty, revising when evidence changes.

At what level does a change occur?

The transition from surviving evidence to reconstruction remains visible and therefore corrigible.

What temporal structure is explicitly described?

The steps offer an order of analysis, not an asserted real-time sequence of mental events. Read the particular example sequence separately from the historical development.

How can the description be tested?

A plausible guess is not a recovered manuscript. Conjecture does not authorise smoothing sources to suit one's taste. Traditions draw boundaries between conjecture and emendation differently, and a framework from one school should not become universal by omission.

Historical context

The HWdR dossier records several historical fields of use. The Atlas's selected editorial focus does not replace those other histories or claim complete independent verification of their primary works.

Cross-language distinction and terminology

Conjectural emendation explains the English focus. Conjecture alone is broader, and exact boundaries between emendation and conjecture vary between editorial traditions.

Scholarly comparisons and distinctions

These entries are editorial comparison anchors for the distinctions made in this article. They are not new canonical relation edges or shared register results.

Proposed thought pathway

  1. Document the transmitted wording unchanged.
  2. Explain why a problem is suspected.
  3. Construct linguistically and contextually possible readings.
  4. Compare transmission, context and alternatives.
  5. Mark intervention and uncertainty, revising when evidence changes.

An editorial exploration, not a necessary sequence of thought or experimental evidence of an effect.

Source scope and provenance

Both specialist versions are editorially accepted. The recorded scope of the reference-work research is retained; this is not a fresh full verification of every primary source. Examples and analytical steps are Atlas applications.