Inaccurate example in dictionary chapter

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

In 9.3.3.2 the example for the word "havdalah" uses <note> to express what is actually a stylistic usage. I would thus suggest to replace it by:

<entry type="foreign"> <form> <orth>havdalah</orth> <orth>havdoloh</orth> <gramGrp> <gram type="pos">n.</gram> </gramGrp> </form> <sense> <usg type="dom">Judaism</usg> <def>the ceremony marking the end of the sabbath or of a festival, including the blessings over wine, candles and spices.</def> </sense> <cit type="translation" xml:lang="en"> <usg type="style">literally</usg> <quote>separation</quote> </cit> </entry>

Note: the <cit> construction should actually be in <form> since it provides a generic literal equivalent, and not one associated to a specific sense (the TEI dictionary chapter representing semasiological entries)

Original comment by: @laurentromary

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

I don't really feel competent to comment on the main import of this bug report, but I do think the <cit> is hardly a <cit> at all. I thought <cit> in <entry> was supposed to supply enough of a context for the item for its usage to be apparent:

"(cited quotation) contains a quotation from some other document, together with a bibliographic reference to its source. In a dictionary it may contain an example text with at least one occurrence of the word form, used in the sense being described, or a translation of the headword, or an example. "

A one-word <quote> doesn't tell you anything, surely? This also applies to other examples in this chapter.

Original comment by: @martindholmes

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

This is something that has bothered me recently (cf paper submitted to JTEI with Werner Wegstein - be patient until it appears...). There is a grey line between the powerful cit construction and the very poor <gloss> or what have you that would normally apply for single word level translations. I tend to think (but you know my urge towards genericity) that <cit> is a good unifying candidate...

Original comment by: @laurentromary

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

I think this is an actual abuse of <cit>. The more I look at it, the more convinced I am. These one-worders are instances of <gloss>, for sure.

Original comment by: @martindholmes

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

• milestone: --> AMBER

Original comment by: @lb42

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

I think Laurent might misunderstand "literally". This doesn't mean "literarily" ("as used in a literary style") but rather notes a literal translation that is given for informative purposes. So I think <note> is entirely appropriate.

As for whether <cit> is tag abuse, here's a bit of history for the record.

In P4 there was an element called <trans> for translations. So "havdalah" was encoded like this in the P4 Guidelines:

<entry type="foreign"> <form>
<orth>havdalah</orth> <orth>havdoloh</orth> </form> <!-- ... --> <usg type="dom">Judaism</usg> <def>the ceremony marking the end of the sabbath or of a festival, including the blessings over wine, candles and spices.</def> <trans>
<lbl>literally</lbl> <tr>separation</tr> </trans> </entry>

There was a conscious decision for P5 to use <cit type="translation"> instead. Maybe it was a mistake in hindsight.

Original comment by: @kshawkin

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

I think I +do+ understand the word... (mind you Kevin, there are a couple of words in English that have French origins). I don't feel at ease with note being used for any kind of such linguistic content in particular at the risk of having two places where one con find a translation (literal or not).

Original comment by: @laurentromary

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

Argh, somehow I wasn't monitoring this ticket. I was objecting only because "literally" feels quite different to me from "US" or "Theat", as in other examples of use of <usg>. But now that I've looked at the definition of <usg>, I agree that <usg type="style"> is recommended for exactly this purpose. Per breakout discussion in Ann Arbor, Kevin will implement.

Original comment by: @kshawkin

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

Fixed at revision 10373.

Original comment by: @kshawkin

[TEITechnicalCouncil]

• status: open --> closed-fixed

Original comment by: @kshawkin