[COMPLETE] The Cambridge Modern History. Volume 03, The Wars of Religion-Leni

[Kazbek]

Thanks for the quick PL, Jessie!

Michael

[TadDavis]

Here's the link for section 38.

https://librivox.org/uploads/leni/cambridgemodernhistory3_38_various_128kb.mp3

The recording is 43m 18s long.

A question came up as I was listening to it that I should have asked earlier. If it needs to be fixed or re-recorded, I'll do that. It has to do with the ranges of dates (years) that appear frequently in the selection.

One decision I made, which I think will be OK, is to read a range given as "(1532-84)" as "1532 to 1584". This is partly for consistency with other date ranges (Cervantes, for example, is "1547-1616") and partly for the convenience of the listener.

The other decision is iffy. Many dates in this section are given as guesses. Edmund Spenser, for example, is given the years "(1552?-99)". If it were "c1552" I'd know what to do - "about 1552" or "approximately 1552". But I've never heard what the "correct" way to read a guess is. My approach in this first pass was to ignore it and simply say (as in this example) "1552 to 1599". But that provides the listener with less information than the text. One option that occurred to me was to say "perhaps 1552 to 1599" (or, in the case of someone where BOTH dates are guesses, like George Turberville, "perhaps 1540 to perhaps 1610").

I don't remember ever encountering this in an audiobook before. What's the accepted way to handle this? I'll do whatever is preferred.

A hundred apologies if this has been discussed already in other posts that I've missed.

[Jman2021]

Michael/Leni,

Here is the link to Section 31. It runs 36:25. Staring Section 32 tomorrow.

https://librivox.org/uploads/leni/cambridgemodernhistory3_31_various_128.mp3

John Andersen

[Kazbek]

Here's the link for section 38.

Thank you, Tad! I'm not aware of any standard for reading dates like "(1552?-99)". I would probably say "question mark" under my breath, but I think simply saying the year is fine. It doesn't impact the message of the text, and if the listener wants to know the confidence of biographical dating for these figures, I think they would go for that information elsewhere.

Michael

[Kazbek]

Michael/Leni,

Here is the link to Section 31. It runs 36:25. Staring Section 32 tomorrow.

https://librivox.org/uploads/leni/cambridgemodernhistory3_31_various_128.mp3

John Andersen

Thank you, John! The filename is missing "kb" at the end. If you need to upload it again for another reason, please add that bit; otherwise, Leni will fix it during cataloging.

Michael

[Jman2021]

Michael,

My bad. Uploaded again - see below. Still runs 36:25.

https://librivox.org/uploads/leni/cambridgemodernhistory3_31_various_128kb.mp3

Take care,

John

[Kazbek]

Michael,

My bad. Uploaded again - see below. Still runs 36:25.

Thanks, John!

Michael

[Owlivia]

https://librivox.org/uploads/leni/cambridgemodernhistory3_45_various_128kb.mp3

35:3.95 run time

[Kazbek]

https://librivox.org/uploads/leni/cambridgemodernhistory3_45_various_128kb.mp3

35:3.95 run time

Thank you, Owlivia!

Michael

[UPRG11W]

PL note:

I listened to this 43:18 recording. It is PL OK. Many thanks for your contribution!

Regards,
Jessie

Here's the link for section 38.

https://librivox.org/uploads/leni/cambridgemodernhistory3_38_various_128kb.mp3

The recording is 43m 18s long.

A question came up as I was listening to it that I should have asked earlier. If it needs to be fixed or re-recorded, I'll do that. It has to do with the ranges of dates (years) that appear frequently in the selection.

One decision I made, which I think will be OK, is to read a range given as "(1532-84)" as "1532 to 1584". This is partly for consistency with other date ranges (Cervantes, for example, is "1547-1616") and partly for the convenience of the listener.

The other decision is iffy. Many dates in this section are given as guesses. Edmund Spenser, for example, is given the years "(1552?-99)". If it were "c1552" I'd know what to do - "about 1552" or "approximately 1552". But I've never heard what the "correct" way to read a guess is. My approach in this first pass was to ignore it and simply say (as in this example) "1552 to 1599". But that provides the listener with less information than the text. One option that occurred to me was to say "perhaps 1552 to 1599" (or, in the case of someone where BOTH dates are guesses, like George Turberville, "perhaps 1540 to perhaps 1610").

I don't remember ever encountering this in an audiobook before. What's the accepted way to handle this? I'll do whatever is preferred.

A hundred apologies if this has been discussed already in other posts that I've missed.

[UPRG11W]

PL note:

I listened to this 36:25 recording. It is PL OK. Many thanks for your contribution!

Regards,
Jessie

Michael,

My bad. Uploaded again - see below. Still runs 36:25.

https://librivox.org/uploads/leni/cambridgemodernhistory3_31_various_128kb.mp3

Take care,

John

[UPRG11W]

PL note:

I listened to this 35:03 recording. It is PL OK. Many thanks for your contribution!

Regards,
Jessie

https://librivox.org/uploads/leni/cambridgemodernhistory3_45_various_128kb.mp3

35:3.95 run time

[UPRG11W]

Praise to the awesome readers of our project! Their reading and recordings are so beautiful and perfect that my task is easy and a pure enjoyment!

Regards,
Jessie

Thanks for the quick PL, Jessie!

Michael

[KevinS]

So for the section 28:
please Kevin, at 5:22 pag 261, 12 lines to the bottom,
I hear 1552 but it is 1542. I may be wrong, so please have a look at it.

This is the only thing to be checked.

Thanks
Emanuela

Thank you!

I forgot to subscribe to this project and did not see your PL note until now. I'll make the correction soon.

[Kazbek]

Praise to the awesome readers of our project! Their reading and recordings are so beautiful and perfect that my task is easy and a pure enjoyment!