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.