Print

Print


Hi Piotr,

If we were going to be attempting any kind of deep dive into the source 
or the mechanics of translation, then this would make a lot of sense, 
but we don't have the resources for that. In some cases, I suspect even 
the claims themselves are spurious or satirical. So what we're doing is 
not respectable linguistics by any stretch of the imagination; the sort 
of question we imagine (eventually) asking of the data would be "how 
many poets between date X and date Y claim to be translating from German?"

Cheers,
Martin

On 2018-10-22 9:40 a.m., Piotr Bański wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> Great to see you address this concern, this information is also very 
> useful in e.g. parallel corpora.
> 
> You are currently postulating extending the content model of 
> `<derivation>` (#1830) in order to be able to construct a relation (of 
> derivation) that has the property of "translation" and that points to a 
> virtual `<bibl>` object, whose only postulated property is having been 
> written in some language. I do see some potential advantages of that 
> (though the required verbosity is somewhat scary). And as Conal says, it 
> feels RDF-y (I'm not saying that that's good or bad; it just does).
> 
> I wonder if you have considered a slightly different way of tackling 
> this issue, by treating the original language as a property of the 
> resulting text (arguably expressed by e.g. structural interference of 
> the original in the result, the possible presence of calques and so on). 
> If that were an acceptable approach then maybe just another attribute of 
> `<textLang>` would cut it for you (at least in the proverbial 80 % of 
> cases)?
> 
> I mean, both would need a ticket and potential extension of the 
> Guidelines, but the latter is more compact and I know I could try to 
> convince (some, maybe many) colleagues to use such a device, while I 
> sense a difficulty in pushing across the idea of exploding the markup 
> even more only to encode this sort of property.
> 
> Best,
> 
>    Piotr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/22/18 6:02 PM, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> I'm trying to find a solution that uses language codes (à la BCP 47) 
>> values in a parsable way, so I want to avoid an ad-hoc note-type 
>> solution.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> On 2018-10-22 2:26 a.m., Thomas Stäcker wrote:
>>> Sorry, now also to the list.
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>> Am 22.10.2018 um 11:25 schrieb Thomas Stäcker:
>>>> Martin,
>>>> from a bibliographical angle I don't see any necessity to refer to a 
>>>> different bibliographic item. It would suffice to note that your 
>>>> text is a translation from the Greek. This can be done by adding a 
>>>> bibliographical note such as <bibl><title>Selected Little-known 
>>>> Greek Poems</title><note>translated from the Greek<note></bibl>. See 
>>>> e.g. the "translation note" in https://www.loc.gov/item/12032596/.
>>>> Best,
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 22.10.2018 um 04:51 schrieb Martin Holmes:
>>>>> Hi Conal,
>>>>>
>>>>> I take your point, but I think my unease derives from the fact that:
>>>>>
>>>>> <relatedItem type="translatedFrom">
>>>>>
>>>>> is ad-hoc (there's no such standardized, recommended or sample 
>>>>> value for relatedItem/@type), while
>>>>>
>>>>> <derivation type="translation">
>>>>>
>>>>> is there in the spec, as a sample value. If <derivation> allows me 
>>>>> to specify that something is a translation, why can't I specify 
>>>>> what language it was translated from in the same place?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2018-10-21 3:56 a.m., Conal Tuohy wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree it is a little unusual to have a <bibl> containing nothing 
>>>>>> but a <textLang>, but personally I don't see anything wrong with 
>>>>>> that if it accurately reflects the (unusual) state of your 
>>>>>> knowledge about this particular text, which I think you said you 
>>>>>> know nothing about except that it was in Greek. My conservative 
>>>>>> inclination is not to add new syntax to TEI where it is already 
>>>>>> adequate (as it seems to me to be). Of course, in the event that 
>>>>>> you DID find out more about the text which was the source for the 
>>>>>> translation, and you had used a <bibl> to describe it, then you 
>>>>>> could enrich that description very easily simply by inserting new 
>>>>>> elements into that <bibl>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I don't find it too prolix or "roundabout"; but perhaps 
>>>>>> this is because this style is more akin to the way it would be 
>>>>>> encoded in RDF, which is something I've come to feel very 
>>>>>> comfortable with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <bibl>
>>>>>>     <title>Selected Little-known Greek Poems</title>
>>>>>>     <textLang mainLang="en"/>
>>>>>>     <relatedItem type="translatedFrom">
>>>>>>        <bibl>
>>>>>>           <textLang mainLang="grc"/>
>>>>>> </bibl>
>>>>>> </relatedItem>
>>>>>> </bibl>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The clincher, for me, is that <bibl> and related elements already 
>>>>>> provide a standard way to encode many kinds of bibliographic 
>>>>>> metadata including the language of the source text. Personally I 
>>>>>> don't see what you stand to gain by adding another alternative 
>>>>>> method whose utility would be more restricted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Conal
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 at 06:46, Martin Holmes <[log in to unmask] 
>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Hi Conal,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     On 2018-10-19 11:18 p.m., Conal Tuohy wrote:
>>>>>>      > The element <relatedItem> may be helpful: if you have a 
>>>>>> <bibl> which
>>>>>>      > describes your English-language text, it could use a
>>>>>>     <relatedItem> to
>>>>>>      > point to a <bibl> which describes the original text of 
>>>>>> which it is a
>>>>>>      > translation (even if only to the extent of naming the 
>>>>>> language,
>>>>>>     with a
>>>>>>      > <textLang> element). e.g.
>>>>>>      >
>>>>>> http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/CO.html#index-egXML-d53e48477 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     That seems a really roundabout way to do something that really
>>>>>>     should be
>>>>>>     quite simple, don't you think? I <bibl> containing nothing but a
>>>>>>     <textLang> would be a bit weird:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     <bibl><textLang mainLang="la"/><bibl>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     And it seems to me that <derivation> is where this should 
>>>>>> really go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     I think I'd like to see the definition and of <lang> expanded so
>>>>>>     that it
>>>>>>     isn't constrained to linguistic contexts alone; and also I 
>>>>>> think it
>>>>>>     needs an attribute on which the language can be specified 
>>>>>> using BCP 47,
>>>>>>     rather than encouraging the use of ad-hoc textual language 
>>>>>> descriptors
>>>>>>     in the content of the element, as we do now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Cheers,
>>>>>>     Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>      > On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 at 01:45, Martin Holmes <[log in to unmask]
>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>      > <mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>> wrote:
>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>      >     Hi all,
>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>      >     We're encoding some poems in English, some of which are
>>>>>>     translations of
>>>>>>      >     original texts in other languages. We don't necessarily 
>>>>>> know
>>>>>>     the source
>>>>>>      >     text ("Translated from the Greek" might be the only 
>>>>>> info we have,
>>>>>>      >     and we
>>>>>>      >     don't have the resources to chase down all the actual
>>>>>>     original sources,
>>>>>>      >     assuming they still exist). But we'd like to include
>>>>>>     information about
>>>>>>      >     the language from which the translation was made, using 
>>>>>> IANA
>>>>>>     language
>>>>>>      >     subtag codes, somewhere in the header. (Each poem gets its
>>>>>>     own TEI file
>>>>>>      >     with its own header.)
>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>      >     I think the obvious place to do this is:
>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>      >     <derivation type="translation">[something in
>>>>>>     here...]</derivation>
>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>      >     The <lang> element looks like it should do the job 
>>>>>> here, but it
>>>>>>      >     seems to
>>>>>>      >     be restricted to "etymological or linguistic" uses, which
>>>>>>     isn't quite
>>>>>>      >     right; and in any case, adding @xml:lang to <lang> would
>>>>>>     apply it to
>>>>>>      >     the
>>>>>>      >     content of the <lang> tag itself.
>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>      >     Has anyone dealt with this? Do you have any 
>>>>>> suggestions? Do
>>>>>>     we need
>>>>>>      >     something like <origLang>, analogous to <origDate> and
>>>>>>     <origPlace>, to
>>>>>>      >     record the language of origin of a text which is a 
>>>>>> translation?
>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>      >     Cheers,
>>>>>>      >     Martin
>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>      > --
>>>>>>      > Conal Tuohy
>>>>>>      > http://conaltuohy.com/
>>>>>>      > @conal_tuohy
>>>>>>      > +61-466-324297
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Conal Tuohy
>>>>>> http://conaltuohy.com/
>>>>>> @conal_tuohy
>>>>>> +61-466-324297
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> ***************************************
>>>> Prof. Dr. Thomas Stäcker
>>>> Direktor der
>>>> Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Darmstadt
>>>> Magdalenenstr. 8
>>>> 64289 Darmstadt
>>>> +49 (0)6151 16-76200
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> ***************************************
>>> Prof. Dr. Thomas Stäcker
>>> Direktor der
>>> Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Darmstadt
>>> Magdalenenstr. 8
>>> 64289 Darmstadt
>>> +49 (0)6151 16-76200
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>