I have used <gloss> for this kind of thing in the past (especially in
P4). The guidelines say <gloss>:
"identifies a phrase or word used to provide a gloss or definition for
some other word or phrase"
which I choose to interpret quite broadly. Both of the attributes used
to associate <gloss> formally with e.g. <term> are optional, and this
example from the guidelines seems to suggest that your situation below
is within the pale:
There is thus a striking accentual difference between a verbal form like
<mentioned xml:id="cw234" xml:lang="grc">eluthemen</mentioned>
<gloss target="#cw234">we were released,</gloss> accented on the
second syllable of the word, and its participial derivative...
given that we could remove all the attributes from both the tags without
rendering the code invalid. I don't see why you can't have a <gloss> for
a full sentence, or even for a lengthy quote.
Stephen Shimanek wrote:
> Hello all,
> I've been following with interest the various discussions that have been
> going on of late (endnote XML --> TEI, q vs quote, global@type, etc.)
> The last has motivated me to enquire about glosses. I have been using
> my own terminology to continue on my markup of Jespersen's Philosophy of
> Grammar, which I have asked about before...
> The examples continue to give me trouble.
> Very often an example is in Finnish and an English gloss (by which I
> mean translation) is given. In my own little "private TE" which
> consists of Word character styles for the moment, I've been labeling
> this "gloss". I notice, however, that the PE5 definition of <gloss>
> corresponds to <term> and not to examples. For the equivalent of what
> is meant by <gloss> I have been using <definition>, which clearly is not
> equivalent to <def>.
> What to do about a fun little paragraph like the following, where the
> example is in Latin, and the gloss given is in German (while the
> metalanguage of the text is English), and moreover is a citation from
> another linguist?
> I hope you understand that I continue using <eg> for the Latin in my
> private universe, but hope to be able to translate it into an acceptable
> public TEI someday which would allow me to distinguish words under
> discussion from full fledged examples of phenomena.
> Similar nexuses may be found also in other positions, where they
> are not the object either of a verb or of a preposition, thus in
> Lat. : /dubitabat nemo quin violati hospites, legati necati, pacati
> atque socii nefario bello lacessiti, fana vexata hanc tantam
> efficerent// vastitatem/ (Cicero, translated by Brugmann «dass die
> mishandlung der gastfreunde, die ermorderung der gesandten, die
> ruchlosen angriffe auf friedliche und verbündete völker, die
> schändung der heiligtümer»).
> Is the simplest solution without trying to create tags unnecessarily to
> treat both as <cit> varying the type such that Cicero is coded as:<cit
> lang="la" type="example"> and Brugmann as:<cit lang="de"
> Once all the examples of the first type of citation (along with the
> examples) have been assigned a unique ID, we could perhaps then
> backtrack through all the <cit type="gloss"> and cross-reference them
> with the ID number taken from the preceding <cit type="example">.
> I admit that I've been reading the guidelines a little less lately in an
> effort to really dig into what I need rather than what's available, but
> any reactions at this stage would probably help steer me into productive
> directions. It is entirely possible I've completely overlooked a tag
> that would be more appropriate, in which case I really thank you ahead
> of time for pointing out even the obvious!
> Best wishes,
> Steve Shimanek
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([log in to unmask])
Half-Baked Software, Inc.
([log in to unmask])
[log in to unmask]