Print

Print


These are good suggestions, and in looking at P4 I see an example  
that has <q type="speech">. So something like

<p><q type="speech" who="Stephen">Tell me now</q>, Stephen said,  
poking the boy's shoulder with the book, <q type="speech"  
who="Stephen">what is a pier</q>.</p>

would be good enough for most purposes.

Since most TEI documents are encoded in TEI Lite and since TEI Lite  
doesn't distinguish between <q> and <quote>  the TEI treatment of <Q>  
elements in practice encourages a conflation of  two very different  
distinctions. The essence of a quotation is that it repeats all or  
part of some previously existing utterance, whether spoken or  
written.  The existence of the repeated utterance may itself be  
fictional, as when the King in 2 Henry IV remembers what Richard said  
to him earlier:

You, cousin Nevil, as I may remember —
When Richard, with his eye brimful of tears,
Then checked and rated by Northumberland,
Did speak these words, now proved a prophecy?
“Northumberland, thou ladder by the which
My cousin Bolingbroke ascends my throne;”
Though then, God knows, I had no such intent
But that necessity so bowed the state
That I and greatness were compelled to kiss:

But the spoken utterances in a novel are first-time utterances and  
not repeated at all. The essence of such an utterance is that it is  
not spoken by the narrator (whether that distinction can always be  
drawn is another matter)  I think there was a TEI thread about this  
some time ago and I took a position that I now think is wrong. If the  
point of the <q>element is that it contains a "representation of  
speech or thought" it may be that its name, almost certainly based on  
the typographical practice of surrounding such representations in  
quotation marks, is deeply misleading.

If you care about not confusing the distinctions between narrative/ 
spoken and primary/repeated utterance, you can of course use <q> 	and  
<quote> in a consistent manner and add the latter to TEI Lite, which  
in theory, if not in practice, is hardly sacred.  But I now think  
that the naming of <q> and <quote> encourages the conflation of quite  
different oppositions.




On Jan 15, 2007, at 9:20 AM, Syd Bauman wrote:

> Hi Martin!
>
> Is this part of a drama, or more like prose (I realize that sometimes
> Joyce isn't as easily classified as many :-)
>
>
> Generally speaking, <sp> and <stage> are intended for drama, whereas
> <q> is intended for prose. I'm going with the idea that this is
> prose. If you like the idea of indicating that "Tell me know" and
> "what is a pier" are part of the <soCalled>same</> quotation, then I
> would link them in any of a variety of ways:
> * next= and prev= from the module on linking, segmentation, and
>   alignment
> * <join> elements elsewhere
> * add part= to <q> via a customization
>
> Thus, something like
>
>   <p><q xml:id="q017s1" next="#q017s2" who="Stephen">Tell me now,</q>
>     <seg type="quoth">Stephen said, poking the boy's shoulder with the
>     book,</seg> <q xml:id="q017s2" pref="#q017s1">what is a pier.</ 
> q></p>
>
> or
>
>   <p><q xml:id="q017s1" who="Stephen">Tell me now,</q> Stephen said,
>     poking the boy's shoulder with the book, <q  
> xml:id="q017s2">what is
>     a pier.</q></p>
>   <!-- ... elsewhere ... -->
>   <join result="q" scope="root" targets="#q017s1 #q017s2"/>
>
> seems like it would do the trick.