Hi, Wolfgang—

The lines from the file are:


\startextract                                               <— LINE 43
\startparagraph
\startlines
.
.
\footnote[particles]{A look at the particles in this sentence suggests that something has gone wrong. The initial «{δέ}» is mildly adversative, as is the «{δέ}» at the beginning of the sentence opening the second paragraph. This is in line with the careful disposition of the {\emph cola} in the whole introduction: independent, principal clauses are always introduced by conjunctive «{δέ}», and inside them the subclauses in contraposition are regularly marked by the canonical «{μέν \dots δέ}». Moreover, every «{μέν}» is answered by a «{δέ}». The only exception is the «{μέν}» in this sentence [lines 23–24]: a clause such as «{οἱ δὲ ἐπιμερεῖϲ οὔ}» (\quote{whereas epimeric do not}) is surely missing due to scribal mistake. I regard the correction as certain, given the strictly analogous structure of the immediately following sentence. Nothing in the interpretation that I shall develop depends on this textual detail, however.}
%
Γινώϲκομεν δὲ καὶ τῶν φθόγγων τοὺϲ μὲν ϲυμφώ{-}
νουϲ ὄνταϲ, τοὺϲ δὲ διαφώνουϲ, καὶ τοὺϲ μὲν ϲυμφώνουϲ 
μίαν κρᾶϲιν τὴν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ποιοῦνταϲ, τοὺϲ δὲ διαφώ{-}                   <—    LINE 62
νουϲ οὔ. τούτων οὕτωϲ ἐχόντων εἰκὸϲ\note[03] τοὺϲ ϲυμφώνουϲ
%
\footnotetext[03]{εἰκόϲ: notice the determination of likelihood in a place where in the first paragraph one finds two occurrences of a determination of necessity. I would link this feature to a perceptibly less firm status of the assumed correspondence between notes and numbers. Compare the more precise statement occurring on the second line of the first paragraph: «{τοὺϲ φθόγγουϲ ἀναγκαῖον ἐν ἀριθμοῦ λόγῳ λέγεϲθαι πρὸϲ ἀλλήλουϲ}».}
%
\Lmt{M160.1}φθόγγουϲ, ἐπειδὴ μίαν τὴν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ποιοῦνται κρᾶϲιν 
τῆϲ φωνῆϲ, εἶναι \underbar{τῶν ἐν ἑνὶ ὀνόματι πρὸϲ ἀλλήλουϲ 
λεγομένων ἀριθμῶν},\note[04]  ἤτοι πολλαπλαϲίουϲ ὄνταϲ ἢ ἐπι{-}
%
\footnotetext[04]{The {\emph variatio} «({ἐν}) {ἑνὶ ὀνόματι}» is very likely a scribal {\emph lapsus}, even if it is not clear whether the mistake is a haplography or a dittography.}
%
μορίουϲ.
\stoplines
\stopparagraph
\stopextract                                      <— LINE 80


​Many thanks for any thoughts on this or advice.

Alan
​

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Wolfgang Schuster <schuster.wolfgang@gmail.com> wrote:
24. November 2015 um 20:47
I have been experimenting with tagging. But my attempts with two files now have generated this sort of error message:

lua error       > lua error on line 62 in file c_Int-A002_Acerbi.tex:


.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/strc-tag.lua:407: bad argument #2 to 'lpegmatch' (string expected, got boolean)

stack traceback:

[C]: in function 'lpegmatch'

.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/strc-tag.lua:407: in function 'strippedtag'

.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/back-exp.lua:740: in function <.../ConTeXt/tex/texmf-context/tex/context/base/back-exp.lua:739>

(...tail calls...)


Could someone tell me what this means—is there are error in my encoding or a problem in lua?
What’s the content of line 62 (plus a few lines before/after) in your file c_Int_A002_Acerbi.tex?

Wolfgang

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________