On this Page Filed elsewhere

Q versus HI REND="marginal quotes"

Source: email
Date: 29 Sep 2004
File name: Ws2570
Vid: n/a
Page ref: n/a
Keywords: Q, HI

Query. Changed most of the Qs to <HI REND="marginal quotes"> because they were really dialogue between the characters in the text rather than block quotations from an external source. This made me wonder: how particular should we be about the use of Q? Obviously in large texts it is impossible to be too fussy, but we could tidy up smaller texts a bit more than we do now. Also, what about paraphrases? Could we have a <Q TYPE="paraphrase">? It's very common in religious "answer to the article by x" type texts.

Answer. I'm not sure how to answer this, since it presupposes some distinctions that we have not (hitherto) been willing to make.

First, some history. Full TEI in fact has two elements, Q and QUOTE. QUOTE seems to be closer to what you have in mind as a true quotation. P3 defines it as containing "a phrase or passage attributed by the narrator or author to some agency external to the text" and the example it gives is of a standard citation from a monograph. Q is more vaguely defined, as containing "a quotation or apparent quotation--a representation of speech or thought marked as being quoted from someone else (whether in fact quoted or not)." This appears to be intended to tag quoted speech, both direct and indirect, quoted thoughts, internal monologues and the like. It specifically does include direct speech within narrative: "in narrative, the words are usually those of a character or speaker." The description is vague enough, however, that Q could also be taken to cover the same territory as QUOTE, as well as much more, including paraphrases and pseudo-quotations of most kinds.

(There's also a special use of Q within the Dictionaries module, which we can ignore.)

One of the decisions made by the creators of TEI-lite, and, working within that tradition, also by the committee that created the EEBO dtd, was to drop QUOTE and use only Q, interpreted in the widest sense to cover all the ground occupied by Q and QUOTE. Practicality impelled us to impose only one restraint on Q and it is a matter of appearance, not sense: though we are free to use Q for any quotation, in practice we've required it only for quotations that are set off from surrounding text by special formatting, i.e. for 'block' quotations of various kinds.

So when you ask whether we should be pickier about our use of Q, you're importing a distinction that was never there to start with: both your distinction between quotations from external sources and speech attributed to a book-internal character, and your distinction between literal quotations and paraphrases, are distinctions not ever present in the meaning of Q--if anything, Q was originally intended to cover exactly the material that you are trying to exclude from it! Should we make those distinctions now? I'm frankly not sure, either whether we should, or whether we can practically do so. I'm open to suggestions.

One thing we can do that would be in keeping with our general strategy of capturing what information we can, using fallback defaults, and occasionally adding more, using more specific tagging--is to leave Q with its present all-inclusive definition, but sometimes narrow it using attributes, as you suggest. TEI <Q> has one attribute that we've dropped (DIRECT), indicating whether the quotation is direct or indirect speech, but we've kept the TYPE and REND attributes: the former could be used selectively as you suggest, and perhaps also to capture the meaning of the lost DIRECT attribute:

<Q TYPE="paraphrase">
<Q TYPE="direct speech by character">

<Q REND="marginal quotes">

These would not much affect current practice, and would be compatible with the existing 8,000 texts.

BTW, Not all the Qs in this book fell into the character-speech category. I changed one to a Q TEXT BODY, as follows:

<P>...So after some debate, the Articles of Agreement were sign'd between them, which are these that follow.</P>

<Q REND="marginal quotes">
<TEXT><BODY><DIV1 TYPE="articles of agreement">
<P><HI>Imprimis</HI>, It is agreed between the Great Knight ...

Back to Top

startq; and endq; to mark dialogue

Source: email
Date: 22 Jul 2004
File name: Ws2059
Vid: 63657
Page ref: n/a
Keywords: Q, HI, SP

The usual marginal quotation marks were not used to mark quotations in the usual way but were used to differentiate the speeches of one character (God) from those of the other (Man) in an imaginary dialogue. Rather than turn the startq/endq pairs into <Q></Q>, I used the startq/endq pair as a cue to insert <SP></SP> tags.

Back to Top

When to use HI REND="marginal quotes"

Source: email
Date: 6 Jun 2003
Keywords: Q, HI

A book read here yesterday showed a somewhat different use of marginal quotation marks: the book contained the proceedings of a conference, in which there were many summaries of the opinions expressed by the various participants (not usually true quotations, even indirect ones). The *king's* opinions were singled out by means of marginal quots. We decided that these were no more quote-like than the other summaries, so should not qualify for <Q> tags. We used <HI REND="marginal quotes"> in this case.

Back to Top

One-off dilemma (unsolved)

Source: email
Date: 16 Apr 2003
File name: S1446-5
Vid: 23700
Keywords: Q

I've come across a book where the author actually says in the "to reader" section that passages said by the Jesuit will be marked with " in the margin (see below).

Obviously in our version there won't be any " (its all in prose). Do I stick with <HI REND="marginal quotes"> or use <Q> or should I try to use " to match what the author tells the reader?

<HEAD>An Admonition to the Reader.</HEAD>
<P>_GENTLE READER, the IESVIT his speeches, through this whole booke, are prin|ted in the smaller letter, al waies with this mark <Q>&startq;&endq;</Q>in the beginning of the line prefixed. HIM I haue tearmed the EPISTLER, CENSVRER, and ANTAPOLOGER, because in a pretended LETTER, he passeth his CENSVRE <HI>against</HI> that learned & religious APOLOGY, made and set forth by our most Gratious & truely renowned <HI>Soueraigne.</HI> The stile, in respect of my place and profession, may, perad|uenture, be adiudged too bitter; but com|pared with <HI>his</HI> Person, and reuiling veine a|gainst <HI>two</HI> such <HI>Christian Monarches,</HI> no one IOTE thereof in exact Suruiew of better iudgement, is either pared off, or spared at all. <HI>Faults</HI> many haue escap|ed <PB REF="7"> tn printing partly vpon negligence, part|ly ihrough hast; but the most of them, are but either a few letters mis-placed, or dropt out; or else points not so curiously set, or some matginall quotations drawne a little higher or lower, perhaps, then they should; which an ingenuous Reader will pardon, & a learned will espie: those which HEE or any such as HE can carp at, are very few; which it may please thee with thy pen to amend, btfore thou read it.</P>

Back to Top

Q and BIBL within HEAD

Source: email
Date: 22 Jan 2003
File name: S1446-5
Vid: 23700
Page ref: n/a

A book has posed the question:
HEAD or EPIGRAPH: a series of chapters, each devoted to explicating a difficult passage of scripture, with the passage itself printed at the head of the chapter, like this:

The first Text Enquired into, viz.
Gen. XLIX. 10.
The Scepter shall not depart from Ju|dah, nor a Law-giver from between his feet, until Shiloh come.

This could be tagged as a head (or as pair of heads):

<HEAD>The first Text Enquired into, viz.
Gen. XLIX. 10.
The Scepter shall not depart from Ju|dah, nor a Law-giver from between his feet, until Shiloh come.</HEAD>

or as a head and epigraph:

<HEAD>The first Text Enquired into, viz.</HEAD>
<BIBL>Gen. XLIX. 10.</BIBL>
<Q>The Scepter shall not depart from Ju|dah, nor a Law-giver from between his feet, until Shiloh come.</Q>

The latter follows our rules for using EPIGRAPH to tag quotations at the head of sermons and commentaries, and captures the Q-ness and BIBL-ness of the parts, but it leaves a truncated and uninformative HEAD.

Resolution? Dump EPIGRAPH but keep Q and BIBL-- within HEAD, thus:

<HEAD>The first Text Enquired into, viz.
<Q><BIBL>Gen. XLIX. 10.</BIBL>
The Scepter shall not depart from Ju|dah, nor a Law-giver from between his feet, until Shiloh come.</Q>


<HEAD>The second Text enquired into, viz.
<Q><BIBL>Exod. XXVIII. 30.</BIBL>
Thou shalt put in the Breast-plate of Iudgment the Urim and the Thum|mim.</Q>


<HEAD>The fifth Text enquired into, viz.
<Q><BIBL>Matthew XXVII. 5.</BIBL>
He departed, and went and hanged himself.</Q>
Compared with
<Q><BIBL>Acts I. 18.</BIBL>
Falling head-long, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his Bowels gushed out.</Q></HEAD>

Back to Top

Two Ps within one Q, or two Qs?

Source: email
Date: 20 Mar 2002
File name: S19409
Keywords: Q

Query. While going through the &startq; and &endq;, I noticed that often they were beginning new Q tags with each paragraph of a highlighted section (so something like <P><Q>...</Q></P><P><Q>...</Q></P> etc.. As there were so many of them that it would take ages to correct, I didn't change them to eg <Q><P>...</P><P>....</P></Q>. Is this ok?


I find that according to one expert "we've been repairing them when
" it was simple to do so (or when the reviewer was feeling obsessive), but
" leaving them alone when it would take too much effort. This book
" would appear to fall into the latter category. I think you're right
" that the consequences will be minor. "

" Sometimes the breakup of the <Q> seems to be triggered by the fact
" that the quotation begins within a paragraph of the surrounding
" text, and then goes on to be broken into paragraphs in its own right.
" The tagger inserts the <Q> tag to mark the beginning of the quotation,
" reaches the end of the paragraph, and finds that he or she must
" close the <Q> in order to close the <P>, and is then stuck with this
" pattern of <Q> within <P> for the remainder of the <Q>.

If the above message be taken as example, I find that there is as usual disagreement in the ranks about the best way to proceed. I don't think it much matters which course is taken. I'd prefer to see the <Q> take precedence and divide it into <P>s right from the start (though this might be thought to place a <P> break where there really isn't one, in the middle of the <P> in which the <Q> begins). I.e.:

<P>...according to one expert
<Q><P>we've been repairing them ... will be minor.</P>
<P>Sometimes the breakup ... remainder of the Q</P>

Others prefer to respect the paragraphing of the book and close the <Q> after that first <P>, then reopen it with a <P> within it. I.e.

<P>...according to one expert
<Q>we've been repairing them ... will be minor.</Q>
<Q><P>Sometimes the breakup ... remainder of the Q</P></Q>

Back to Top

Source: email
Date: 28 Feb 2002
Vid: 107262
Page ref: 5
Keywords: Q

Author's interjections within Q

Query. If you have a block quotation, with an author interjection half way through (eg "blah blah (as they say) blah blah") does the interjection go inside or outside the Q tag?

Answer. As I recall, early on I had thoughts about excluding parenthetical authorial remarks from block quotations, but I believe I thought better of it. It would be hard to carry out consistently and of little or no benefit. So I say, ignore the parenthetical intrusions when tagging the Q.

Your example:

<Q>I must not deny my sins, (says the Man) the righteous man falls seven times a day; We dwell in a body of sin; Our first Parent eat of the forbidden fruit, and so derived a Curse upon his unhappy posterity; <HI>Homo sum,</HI> I am a son of <HI>Adam,</HI> I need say no more to speak my guilt.</Q>

Back to Top

Use of Q and BIBL in HEAD (2)

Source: notes file
Date: Wb2927
File name: 24 Jul 2003
Keywords: Q, BIBL, HEAD

Each sermon has a <HEAD> including one or more Bible quotations. I've left these as <HEAD>s for the sake of consistency, but wondered whether to make the scriptural passages <EPIGRAPH>s. I didn't because a couple of the early sermons have additional information which would still go in a <HEAD>, but the others wouldn't have <HEADS>. Also there would presumably have to be multiple <EPIGRAPH>s in most cases. What I've done doesn't feel very satisfactory but is at least consistent.

PFS: one solution would be to make use of the fairly loose content model of HEAD. It can contain <Q> and <BIBL>. Since the quotations and BIBLs are mixed together and combined with headlike information, unlike tidy epigraphs, I would leave it all in HEAD and tag the quotation-related info, thus:

<HEAD><BIBL><HI>Rom.</HI> 11. 36.</BIBL> <Q>Of Him, and through Him, and for Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever.</Q>
And <BIBL><HI>1 Cor.</HI> 10, 31.</BIBL> <Q>Whatsoeuer ye do, do all to the glory of God.</Q></HEAD>.

Back to Top

Q or TRAILER at the end of chapters

Source: notes file
Date: 23 Oct 2003
File name: S11499

Many of the chapters ended with Latin Bible quotations. There was an inconsistent use of Q or TRAILER. I made the quotations Q and BIBL and left TRAILER for things like "AMEN." (There is no way keyer could have been expected to recognize these were quotations.)

PFS: the trouble with this approach is that it does nothing to recognize the special chapter-ending quality of the quotations. As a result, if the AMEN precedes the quotation, it can't be tagged as trailer. I.e.,

<Q>¶ Arbitramur iustificari hominem per fi|dem sine operibus legis. <BIBL>Ro. 3</BIBL></Q>

is illegal. I think you have two choices:

<EPIGRAPH><Q>¶ Arbitramur iustificari hominem per fi|dem sine operibus legis.</Q>

or (now that I've revised the dtd to make TRAILER the same as HEAD in contents):

<TRAILER><Q>¶ Arbitramur iustificari hominem per fi|dem sine operibus legis.</Q>

I prefer the EPIGRAPH solution.

Back to Top

Use BIBL where there are no Q tags?

Source: notes file
Date: 10 Dec 2003
File name: S12135
Keywords: BIBL, Q

Should we be tagging bibl information in a collection of anecdotes like this, even if the material isn't in <Q> tags? The bibls aren't tagged, but I was wondering whether I ought to have put them in.

PFS: attractive idea, and reasonable, but maybe not feasible in this book, in which bibliographical citations tend to be not only attached to the end of anecdotes but also embedded within them, often in discursive form. E.g.:

"... At this time we doe onely represent that which CONRADVS LICOSTHENE: hath collected. IOB. FINCET. MARC FRYTSCH, and many others, in his great volume, <HI>De Prodigijs et Ostentis.</HI> As for Comets, showers of bloud, prodigious hayle, and other won|ders of Heauen, we will speake of them in their proper places.</P>"

Difficult to see just where the <BIBL> would begin and end.

Back to Top

Thus far in BIBL

Source: email
Date: 2002-12-12
File name: apex/Wt1955
Keywords: BIBL

I put comments like "thus far Stow" as <BIBL> within the quote they are referring to. This was a handy way of distinguishing them from the quoted text, but also associating them with the right quotation. However, it may not be a proper use of <BIBL>.

PFS: sounds perfectly sensible to me.

Back to Top

Replacement of startq; and endq; with Q or HI REND="marginal quotes"

Source: email
Date: 11 Mar 2002

Keywords: QHI RENDstartq;endq;

Query. Could I globally replace &startq;s and &endq;s with <HI REND="marginal quotes">s? Would it matter if some genuine quotations were tagged as <HI>s?

Answer. Theoretically I see no problem with this; that is, no, I do not think it much matters if we miss a genuine <Q> or two, since we are still preserving the <HI>.

Practically, however, you will have to judge from the book in hand whether it is possible to identify the appropriate beginning and end of the highlighted portion automatically. The major reason that we had to resort to the &startq;/endq business, and the manual intervention that is involved, is that the affected text is usually imprecisely located by means of the marginal quots. alone. The piece of text that should be placed within the <HI> or <Q> tags often begins in the middle of the line next to which the " appears--and sometimes not even in the same line. Here, for example, is a bit from Sidney, as printed:

................................... The Knights as
soone as they heard the retraite (though they were ea-
gerly set, knowing that courage without discipline is "
nearer beastlinesse then manhood) drew backe their "
swords, though hungrie of more blood : especially the
blacke Knight .......................................

That is, two lines are flagged with the marginal marks, the line ending "is" and the line ending "their." But the bit that should actually be highlighted is, I think, only the clause from "courage" through "manhood," like this:

The Knights as soone as they heard the retraite (though they were ea|gerly set, knowing that <HI REND="marginal quotes">courage without discipline is nearer beastlinesse then manhood</HI>) drew backe their swords, though hungrie of more blood : especially the blacke Knight

Back to Top