[tei-council] Chapter 9 - Dictionaries

[Laurent Romary]

One important thing to understand is the role of <cit> in P5 as a  
generic container for any linguistic quotation/example refined by  
linguistic or biliographical information. It may thus occur in  
context where one would just want to provide an example (it has thus  
replaced the 'old' and specific dictEG we used to have in P4) or  
translations (thus replacing the 'old' tr+trans construction). A  
typical interesting application is for me:
  <cit type="translation" xml:lang="en">
   <quote>remoulade</quote>
   <quote>rémoulade</quote>
   <def>dressing containing mustard and herbs</def>
  </cit>
Where the definition situates the meaning of the translation in the  
target language.
A more usual one is a translation that only applies in certain  
grammatical or semantic circumstances:
    <cit type="translation" xml:lang="fr">
     <quote>habilleur</quote>
     <gen>m</gen>
    </cit>
And a more elaborate one when an example is provided with its  
translation:
  <cit type="example">
    <quote>she's a stylish <oRef/>
    </quote>
    <cit type="translation" xml:lang="fr">
     <quote>elle s'habille avec chic</quote>
    </cit>
   </cit>
You see that <quote> is always used as default element for the phrase/ 
sentence, and would recommend this as good practices to guaranty some  
homogeneity of such linguistic elements all over a dictionary.
So let's avoid <eg> in any case, and try to use the cit/quote  
construction in a systematic way.
Laurent



Le 4 févr. 08 à 07:29, Syd Bauman a écrit :

>>> 2) Since <sense> is defined (not in the source) as grouping info
>>> related to "definitions, examples, and translation equivalents",
>>> while I see <cit type="example"> used, what about also allowing
>>> <eg>? Maybe an example could also be given of how a translation
>>> equivalent would be encoded (e.g., with @xml:lang)? And are these
>>> really "citations"?
>
>> I agree that there is a case to be made for permitting <eg> here --
>> it is permitted, in fact if the appropriate modules are included in
>> the schema. There is clearly some overlap in meaning between <eg>
>> and <quote> in this context, though most dictionaries tend to
>> prefer to use real life quotations rather than made up examples,
>> which is why <cit> is proposed: this element also gives the
>> opportunity of associating a quotation with its source, or some
>> other structure.
>
> While I agree there is a case to be made for <eg>, it seems to me that
> <quote> is the correct element to use. To me <cit> only makes sense
> when there is also a citation of the source for a quotation, and you
> want to wrap them together. I still do not understand its use to
> encode the quotation itself. Seems to me <eg> makes more sense than
> <cit>, and <quote> makes more sense than <eg>.
>
> The <quote> element is specifically intended to encode passages
> quoted from sources outside the text, whether correctly or not,
> whether real or contrived, whether originally spoken or written.
> (Or signed.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council