[tei-council] <said> proposals available

[Lou Burnard]

I'm still only mildly enthusiastic about the introduction of <said>, 
which seems to me a step too far in the interpretive direction, but 
realise I'm probably in a minority. If the majority view prevails, then 
I much prefer the "said-q-hi" implementation of it to the other one.

Assuming that this proposal carries, I think the chapter should include 
some examples (presented as alternatives) using <q>, to reinforce the 
point that this is analogous to <hi>.

Do we still want the list of entity names now that we don't really 
support character entities? In effect, these are now just suggested 
values for @rend, and mostly rather obscure ones at that.

The example from Terry Langendoen's book was chosen by Michael as a 
little gesture of appreciation to TL, so Michael is probably the person 
to ask about how it should be tagged! FWIW, though, I don't think <term> 
is right: "language" isn't being defined in this example, it's being 
talked about. Hence the use of <mentioned>.


Syd Bauman wrote:
> The two separate proposals for the new <said> element are now
> available in http://www.tei-c.org/Drafts/said/ (or will be as soon as
> the server syncs). The two proposals are in files called
>   said-asis
>   said-q-hi
> and each has .odd source and derived .doc.html, .rnc, and .rng files. 
>
> The two proposals are very similar. The only difference is how the
> <q> element is defined. In the latter ("said-q-hi") proposal, the
> Guidelines are explicit that <q> can be used for any of the various
> underlying reasons that gets represented with quotation marks. I
> prefer this proposal, in part because I think lots of people already
> use <q> this way.
>
> Here is a quick executive summary:
>
> <said> is for direct speech (or its discursive equivalents: e.g.
>        reported thought or speech, dialog, etc.), whether real or
>        contrived, typically as part of the current text, although I
>        suppose one could imagine otherwise. Most common usage is
>        likely to be a character's spoken words in a novel or a
>        person's spoken words reported in a non-fiction article. In
>        English prose it will very often be associated with phrases
>        like "he said", or "she asked". <said> is not a viable child
>        of <cit>.
>
> <quote> is for material that is quoted from sources outside the text,
>         whether correctly or not, whether real or contrived, whether
>         originally spoken or written. Most common usage is likely to
>         be quoting passages from other documents. May be used in a
>         dictionary for real or contrived examples of usage. <quote>
>         is still a viable child of <cit>.
>
> --------- said-asis: ---------
> <q> is for passages quoted from elsewhere; in narrative, either
>     direct or indirect speech or something being quoted from outside
>     the text; in dictionaries, real or contrived examples of usage.
>     <q> is still a viable child of <cit>, for those who don't use the
>     more specific <quote>.
>
> --------- said-q-hi: ---------
> <q> is for any of a number of features when differentiating among
>     them is not desired, e.g. because it is economically not feasible
>     or simply not of interest for the current purpose. Items that may
>     be encoded this way include
>     - representation of speech or thought
>     - quotation
>     - technical terms and glosses
>     - passages mentioned, not used
>     - authorial distance
>     and perhaps even
>     - from a foreign language
>     - linguistically distinct
>     - emphasized
>     - any other use of quotation marks in the source
>
>
> Some tangentially related items I noticed: 
>
> * I think the example with <list type="speakers"> should be re-worked
>   so that the who= attributes are pointing to <person>s, but as I
>   don't speak French (that is French, right? -- there should really
>   be an xml:lang= on the <egXML>, no?) I am not a good choice to do
>   that work.
>
> * In the last example of the section, the word "language" is encoded
>   as a <mentioned>, but I don't think that's right. I'm not very
>   confident about what *is* right, but I'd prefer <term> to
>   <mentioned>. (I suppose we could ask the co-author of the source
>   for the example, Terry Langendoen, who chaired the committee on
>   text analysis and interpretation back in the early 1990s :-)
>
>
> Some unrelated changes I've made in the ODD:
>
> * lowercase 'm' -> uppercase 'M' in description of em dash
>
> * "the quotation is marked up as part of a concurrent but independent
>   hierarchy" changed to "the quotation is marked up using stand-off
>   markup", as we don't do concurrent hierarchies any more
>
> * "the quotation boundaries are represented by empty milestone tags"
>   to "the quotation boundaries are represented by empty segment
>   boundary delimiter elements", as they're *not* milestones!
>
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>
>