Thank you ,Godfried and Lou, for your prompt answers!
I have actually been misguided by the French word "ostensible" in
understanding the Guidelines, but it should be noted that the definition
in the element reference
with a parenthesis mentioning the quotation marks:
"<q> (separated from the surrounding text with quotation marks) contains
material which is marked as (ostensibly) being somehow different than
the surrounding text, for any one of a variety of reasons including, but
not limited to: direct speech or thought, technical terms or jargon,
authorial distance, quotations from elsewhere, and passages that are
mentioned but not used."
The point I was trying to make is that in my source manuscript the
direct speech is not marked in any way as different from the surrounding
text and using <q> for purely interpretative markup seemed to contradict
the definition given in the current Guidelines (while it used to be
perfectly legal in P4).
I know that the definition was changed and the element <said> introduced
in order to make things clearer but I am afraid the confusion is still
possible. If <quote who="#Lou>The purpose of <q> is to be a more generic
version of the more specialised tags such as <quote>, <said>,
<mentioned> etc. </quote>, this should be clearly stated in the
Guidelines, I think.
I thought of using <said> for the inscription on the sword, because:
1) swords, stones, etc. in the Quest of the Holy Grail can be
interpreted as "personages" just as human beings;
2) the definition of <said> looks very much like that of "reported
speech" in linguistics;
3) the attributes @who (also available on <q>) and @direct (not
available on <q> in P5) might be useful for further analysis.
<quote> does not have any of these attributes but I agree that <said
type="written"> would be weird, so I withdraw my proposal.
I would be very happy to use <q> for all kinds of direct speech (as I
used to do in P4) but I just wanted to be sure this would not be a tag
le 28/07/2010 12:59 Selon Lou:
> 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
>>> [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
>>> of <q> in the Guidelines.