Lavrentev Alexey wrote:
> I am afraid I have to raise once again the old <q> vs. <quote> vs.
> <said> problem.
> According to the current Guidelines, <q> is not appropriate, beacause in
> the manuscript there are no quotation marks or any other ostensible
> graphical marks of these passages.
The definition for <q> in the Guidelines currently says
"contains material which is marked as (ostensibly) being somehow
different than the surrounding text, for any one of a variety of reasons"
This is possibly in some need of revision partly because of the
non-mid-Atlantic use of "different than", but more seriously because I
think the word "ostensibly" is being used in a rather obscure way. It
does NOT imply that quote marks must be present. Il ne faut pas
confondre le mot francais "ostensible" (=conspicuous, patent) et le mot
anglais "ostensible" (=prétendu, feint, apparent).
I have just noticed that the French translation of this definition in
the Guidelines reads
"contient un fragment qui est marqué (visiblement) comme
étant d’une manière ou d'une autre différent du texte environnant,"
so you are not alone in being misled by this faux-ami.
I suggest the English definition for <q> should be revised to read
"contains any representation of speech, thought, or writing
distinguished in some way from the surrounding text"
The purpose of <q> is to be a more generic version of the more
specialised tags such as <quote>, <said>, <mentioned> etc. The idea is
that <q type="blah"> (or just <q> if you're in a hurry) is usually an
acceptable alternative for <blah>, as the list of suggested values for
@type on <q> in the Guidelines makes clear.
So I would use <q> for this case -- if you don't want to use <quote>
I would certainly not recommend expanding the definition of <said> to
include "utterance"s which are not spoken, since the sole purpose of
introducing the <said> element was to make that distinction.