Obedient Servant
I really like this tag as a person. I feel like the class would be a 50/50 split on whether or not to tag this as a person or even tag it at all, but it is obvious that the Obedient Servant that is being mentioned is Burr himself, as he is promising to abide by the duel that he is proposing to Hamilton.
Immigrants:
I would definitely consider immigrants to be a group of people Orr organization as denoted by a pink tag. Obviously immigrants are a group of people, which would aid me in deciding that this was a group and an organization.
war
I believe this could have been tagged as an event. Now, it is not necessarily stating what war would have caused them to meet, but it is essentially alluding to the war that Hamilton and the country was involved in during the play. All in all, war could be seen as an event, and I would have tagged it as such.
quill
I believe this could have been tagged as ab object, because a quill was a writing tool in the days before pens and pencils.
Congress
I have tagged Congress as an organization of people because that is exactly what it is. It can bee argued that congress could be tagged as a person, because congressman/woman is often attached to the beginning of a congressman/woman's name, but in this instance Hamilton is referring to congress as a whole.
modern major general
I have tagged modern major general because in this instance he is referring to himself as a modern major general and it can be inferred that someone could also refer to him as modern major general. Also, the reference to his title as general (noun) helped me in identifying this title as a name which I tagged it as.
Yet, working through the assigned readings, using trial and error, and collaborating with my classmates made my first experience with TEI encoding a great one.
I feel that the most important piece of understanding coding for me was like you said trial and error, in addition to the aid of Dr J on the activities. I feel that coding is overall very methodical, even though it seemed like Chinese at first.
Encoding is analytical because it identifies a set of components into which the text can meaningfully be broken and whose relationship can be represented through the markup.
This is a great definition of encoding, I feel that for people unaware of the intricacies of coding, you would be able to understand coding with this definition. Bravo on word use and in depth understanding.
It comes off as a complicated activity, but I think these simple words by Julia Flanders perfectly describe what it is, “at its heart, text encoding is a process of creating a digital model of a textual source using markup: codes that live in the transcription of the text and identify its structure and content” (Flanders, 104)
Great quote to describe this action. I was actually going to us this quote as well, as it perfectly described the action of coding for people who don't quite understand the action.
I have realized that exact history does not exactly make for the best entertainment so I am willing to alter some minor details in order to make for a better accepted text.
I believe that the history was already altered a great deal, as it doesn't add the back and fourth accurately which would show why Burr truly hated Hamilton.
While it is true that the history simply might not have had a happy ending, I think there is always room for manipulation in show business
I completely agree with this idea, but the only way that we could make the story a happy one would be to acknowledge the great and impactful things that Hamilton did, which I believe should've been instituted more.
It ended after Burr killed Hamilton and showed his remorse on now being the villain in history.
How would you change the way Burr was seen specifically? Would you make him the villain more or add sympathy to his character because of his situation?
This was because the musical introduction consisted of introducing Hamilton to the audience. On the other hand, Aaron Burr was more frequent in act two versus act one because this segment of the musical contained the climax of the musical, Hamilton and Burr’s duel.
It is also important to note that the deadly duel left Hamilton dead towards the end of the play, with Burr the only man remaining. This could aid the argument that Burr is seen more data wise than Hamilton and it is certainly important to keep this in mind.
In both sets of data, Hamilton is shown to be more frequent than Burr in both acts.
This is very interesting to me because on my voyant tool, it appears that Burr is said more often than Hamilton in act 2 with speaker tags removed. Unfortunately the voyant tool Jake used will not load for me (computer problems I guess), but I would be very curious to see his tool and understand how there is a difference in what our charts say.
Pennebacker’s reading regarding the meaning and importance of word choice helps further break down and examine Alexander Hamilton. Pennebacker states, “high- status people tend to use we and you at high rates compared to low status individuals. And low status individuals overuse I” (Pennebacker, 2011). According to Pennebacker’s statements, I would argue that Alexander Hamilton is a high-status individual.
This is a very interesting passage, this being that in the 1750s in America and the world, the class you were born win determines your standing in society. Alexander, an immigrant boy born on a plantation with no parents by the young age of 15, was about as low class as you could get. This was a time of very little vertical social/financial mobility, so it would be hard to believe Alexander would later be defined as high status, but in this case Alexander was high class, and I appreciate Jake shining light on this.