I agree with Godfried (for once) :-)
Further to my earlier note though, I see that the current definition for
<q> does have a note "May be used to indicate that a passage is
distinguished from the surrounding text by quotation marks for reasons
concerning which no claim is made."
The verb "may" in the Guidelines is another one of those slippery
ones... I think it means here "you can use <q> if there are quote
marks", not "you can use <q> ONLY IF there are quote marks"
But you *may* disagree with me, and wish to restrict it to that case!
Croenen, Godfried wrote:
> It seems a straightforward case for using <quote> to me. I cannot interpret this passage in any other way than that the phrase was written on (carved into) the sword. The fact that Old French often uses 'dire' to refer to written text does not alter that.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list [mailto:TEI-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lavrentev Alexey
>> Sent: 28 July 2010 10:31
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: tagging "written direct speech"
>> I am afraid I have to raise once again the old <q> vs. <quote> vs.
>> <said> problem.
>> I am tagging direct speech in an Old French manuscript of the Quest of
>> the Holy Grail.
>> 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.
>> <said> is fine when the utterance is spoken aloud or thought but I have
>> a problem with writings on the rocks like this:
>> et li baron resgardoient les letres qui disoient *ia nus ne m'ostera de
>> ci se cil non a qui coste ie pendrai...*
>> (Translation [sorry for my English]: ... and the barons looked at the
>> letters which were saying *no one will ever pull me out of here but the
>> one by whose side I will be hanging...*).
>> The "speaker" here is a sword stuck in the rock. It seems to me that
>> <said> is more appropriate than <quote> here (the latter does not have
>> @who and @direct) but I cannot figure out the way to make a distinction
>> between spoken and written utterances, as <said> (unlike <q>) does not
>> have @type.
>> It seems to me that either the definition of <said> should be refined to
>> allow the distinction between spoken and written utterances or that the
>> condition of "ostensible marking" should be removed from the description
>> of <q> in the Guidelines.