Inconsistency between 6.3.6.1 and 6.3.6.2 in sbl-examples

[folofjc]

In the file sbl-examples.pdf there seems to be an inconsistency between the multi and single volume dictionary bibliography entries. Since the SBLHS2 only has an example of a multivolume entry in 6.3.6, there is not a great reference to what the single volume dictionary entry should look like. However, since the text refers to the similarity to journals, I would expect that the single and multi volume dictionaries would be similar.

The multi volume looks correct in the bibliography. However, the single volume bibliography has the entire entry for the dictionary, which actually makes it look more like an edited collection than a journal entry. I would expect the single volume entry to simply have the abbreviation of the dictionary (DOTP) with the page range, just like the \printbibliography of the multi volume in 6.3.6.1. When I look at the tex file, it doesn't look like there is much of a difference. Why in the bib command on 6.3.6.2 does it print the whole dictionary, when the dictionary should probably be in the list of abbreviations and the bib entry for the dictionary entry should just have the shorttitle of the dictionary? It looks like the fullbibrefs is set for 6.3.6.2 but I don't see it in the tex code.

[dcpurton]

Yes, I think you're right.

I can't remember the exact reason now, but I think the I did what I did was because of similarities with multi volume and single volume commentaries on the entire Bible which are covered in the student supplement. (See §6.4.9.2 and §6.4.10.2 in biblatex-sbl-examples.pdf.)

SBL has since clarified things in a few posts on their blog. See especially https://sblhs2.com/2017/04/13/citing-reference-works-5-topical-dictionaries-and-encyclopedias/. In general they now prefer that the bibliography always contains short forms and abbreviations.

New code already handles things correctly, but I think I'll fix this in this version too. Until fixed, I think the simplest option is to do something like this:

\documentclass{article}

\begin{filecontents}[overwrite]{\jobname.bib}
@reference{DOTP,
  editor = {Alexander, T. Desmond and Baker, David W.},
  title = {Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch},
  shorttitle = {DOTP},
  location = {Downers Grove, IL},
  publisher = {InterVarsity},
  date = {2003},
  shorthand = {DOTP}
}

@inreference{olson:2003,
  author = {Olson, Dennis T.},
  title = {Numbers, Book of},
  shorttitle = {Numbers},
  pages = {611-618},
  crossref = {DOTP},
  xref = {DOTP}
}
\end{filecontents}

\usepackage[style=sbl]{biblatex}
\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}

\DeclareBibliographyAlias{inreference}{inreference:short}

\renewbibmacro*{volume+pages}{%
  \iffieldundef{volume}
    {\setunit{\addcomma\space}}
    {\setunit{\addspace}%
     \printfield{volume}%
     \setunit*{\addperiod}%
     \printfield{part}%
     \setunit{\volpostnotedelim}%
     \global\booltrue{usevolpostnotedelim}}
  \usebibmacro{pages}}

\begin{document}
\null\vfill
Filler text \autocite{olson:2003}
\printbiblist{abbreviations}
\printbibliography
\end{document}

[folofjc]

Hi @dcpurton. Thanks for that!

I have now (re)read the blog posts on 2, 3, and 5. My new question(s) is(are) which entry types are used for each of these.

1. For lexicons like BDAG, HALOT, LEH, the entries should be unsigned and use the s.v. with the head word and not appear in the bibliography.

   For signed entries like TDOT, TDNT, etc, the signed entries should appear basically like a journal article.

   For some longer theological dictionaries, the page range and a section are permissible (I have no idea why a section is permissible here, see 3.4 here; but that sections are not permissible with things like TDOT, compare to 6 here. )

   Based upon the examples file, the inlexicon type does things like TDOT, TDNT, etc from 6.3.7 and the blog here (maybe this should be renamed to an entry type of dictionary?) It shows the author and name of the entry.

   What about an actual lexicon like BDAG or HALOT? I have been citing it how many people do in literature, something like HALOT, 349. But that is incorrect according to the blog. It needs the s.v. and the word. But what entry type is this? I cannot see any examples of this in the example file.

2. How do you do unsigned entries from a multivolume lexicon that should look something like CAD 20, s.v. “ubšukkinakku.” where the volume follows the abbreviation? This also applies to topical dictionaries that are multivolume with unsigned entries, such as ISBE 4, s.v. “Sosipater.”

3. What is the difference between mvreference (which you use for 6.3.6) and mvlexicon (which you use for 6.3.7)? Honestly, the output from your example file looks very similar for these two (except that 6.3.6 uses a single volume).

4. What entry type is the subtitled section of ABD as in section 4.2 here? In this case, the bib has both the total entry and the "sub entry". That one is super confusing and honestly an edge case that is probably hard to generalize in an entry type.

5. In your example file for 6.3.7, you have TDNT, TLNT, etc in the bib. But according to number 9 here, the dictionaries are only in the abbreviation list, not the bib.

6. One last confusing thing from the blog that maybe you can help me with, is that for the section on NIDNTT in the blog post here, it states

   Although designed as a companion to NIDNTT, this work diverges in several important respects: lexical entries are arranged in Hebrew word order, not English word order; and a topical dictionary of nearly a thousand pages follows the Hebrew entries (4:346–1322). The examples provided below are for the Hebrew entries; citations of the topical dictionary will be discussed in a subsequent post

   However, in the subsequent post about topical dictionaries, there is really nothing there that for NIDNTT would be different. The only things that are different are about sections in 3.4 and about subentries in 4.2 (and then specific odd works like PW which do not apply to NIDNTT). It seems to be that the blog post on topical dictionaries basically says that you need to either cite as a lexicon (unsigned) or like a theological dictionary (signed, like an article). I don't know what is different about citing the topical dictionary in NIDNTT as compared to the lexical entries??

I don't even know if this is possible in the older version of biblatex-sbl or only in your new version.

[dcpurton]

I have now (re)read the blog posts on 2, 3, and 5. My new question(s) is(are) which entry types are used for each of these.

I fear you overestimate my knowledge and understanding, but we'll see how we go :wink:

1. For lexicons like BDAG, HALOT, LEH, the entries should be unsigned and use the s.v. with the head word and not appear in the bibliography. For signed entries like TDOT, TDNT, etc, the signed entries should appear basically like a journal article. For some longer theological dictionaries, the page range and a section are permissible (I have no idea why a section is permissible here, see 3.4 here; but that sections are not permissible with things like TDOT, compare to 6 here. )

Part of my problem is I'm not super familiar with most of these more specialised works. And the two posts you cite do seem oddly contradictory. I have noticed that they do change their position even within the blog. When in doubt, prefer the most recent date. But to be honest, as long as you're consistent on something like that I doubt it matters much.

Based upon the examples file, the inlexicon type does things like TDOT, TDNT, etc from 6.3.7 and the blog here (maybe this should be renamed to an entry type of dictionary?) It shows the author and name of the entry. What about an actual lexicon like BDAG or HALOT? I have been citing it how many people do in literature, something like HALOT, 349. But that is incorrect according to the blog. It needs the s.v. and the word. But what entry type is this? I cannot see any examples of this in the example file.

Yes, there were no examples for BDAG and HALOT in the original handbook and I've really only seen them like you mention. In fact I've never seen a book reference anything using s.v. or s.vv. But probably most stuff I use is not technical enough.

2. How do you do unsigned entries from a multivolume lexicon that should look something like CAD 20, s.v. “ubšukkinakku.” where the volume follows the abbreviation? This also applies to topical dictionaries that are multivolume with unsigned entries, such as ISBE 4, s.v. “Sosipater.”

See below.

3. What is the difference between mvreference (which you use for 6.3.6) and mvlexicon (which you use for 6.3.7)? Honestly, the output from your example file looks very similar for these two (except that 6.3.6 uses a single volume).

The printed handbook has a weird thing with lexicons where subsequent citations just included author and page number (see § 6.3.7). Happily the blog has abandoned this particular piece of stupidity, so now the @lexicon family of entries is basically redundant. The new version just uses @*reference everywhere for dictionaries, encyclopedias and lexicons.

4. What entry type is the subtitled section of ABD as in section 4.2 here? In this case, the bib has both the total entry and the "sub entry". That one is super confusing and honestly an edge case that is probably hard to generalize in an entry type.

Doesn't https://sblhs2.com/2017/04/13/citing-reference-works-5-topical-dictionaries-and-encyclopedias/ suggest that only the sub-entry goes in the bib? And the full work in list of abbreviations.

5. In your example file for 6.3.7, you have TDNT, TLNT, etc in the bib. But according to number 9 here, the dictionaries are only in the abbreviation list, not the bib.

I think this is one of the changes from the book to the blog. The handling of lexicons changed completely and it's a pain to change the old code.

For now, I reckon you should move everything to @*reference and then try and problem solve the places where you can't automatically get the output you need.

6. One last confusing thing from the blog that maybe you can help me with, is that for the section on NIDNTT in the blog post here, it states

   Although designed as a companion to NIDNTT, this work diverges in several important respects: lexical entries are arranged in Hebrew word order, not English word order; and a topical dictionary of nearly a thousand pages follows the Hebrew entries (4:346–1322). The examples provided below are for the Hebrew entries; citations of the topical dictionary will be discussed in a subsequent post

   However, in the subsequent post about topical dictionaries, there is really nothing there that for NIDNTT would be different. The only things that are different are about sections in 3.4 and about subentries in 4.2 (and then specific odd works like PW which do not apply to NIDNTT). It seems to be that the blog post on topical dictionaries basically says that you need to either cite as a lexicon (unsigned) or like a theological dictionary (signed, like an article). I don't know what is different about citing the topical dictionary in NIDNTT as compared to the lexical entries??

I agree with you. As far as I can see the key difference for all these works is whether articles are signed or unsigned.

I don't even know if this is possible in the older version of biblatex-sbl or only in your new version.

You'll probably get reasonably far with the old version using @*reference for everything (especially with the fix I suggested above). But I think there will be some cases where the punctuation around volume numbers goes haywire.

The new version handles all these cases. It's a bit stricter on input format, though. You have to use \volcite to specify the volume of a multi-volume work.

For the unsigned articles, I think it's easiest to reference the full work rather than create a separate entry. This kind of thing will get you most of the way to the blog (except for the new abbreviation format which isn't properly handled in old version—this could probably be fixed without too much trouble).

% TeX Program = lualatex

\documentclass{article}
\begin{filecontents}[overwrite]{\jobname.bib}
@mvreference{CAD,
  shorthand = {CAD},
  editor = {Gelb, Ignace J. and others},
  title = {The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago},
  shorttitle = {CAD},
  volumes = {21},
  location = {Chicago},
  publisher = {The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago},
  date = {1956/2010},
  options = {skipbib}
}
@reference{HBD,
  shorthand = {HBD},
  editor = {Powell, Mark Allan and others},
  title = {HarperCollins Bible Dictionary},
  shorttitle = {HBD},
  edition = {3},
  location = {San Francisco},
  publisher = {HarperOne},
  date = {2011},
  options = {skipbib}
}
@mvreference{NIDNTT,
  shorthand = {NIDNTT},
  editor = {Brown, Colin},
  title = {New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology},
  shorttitle = {NIDNTT},
  volumes = {4},
  location = {Grand Rapids},
  publisher = {Zondervan},
  date = {1975/1985},
  options = {skipbib}
}
@inreference{dahn+liefeld:see+vision+eye,
  author = {Dahn, Karl and Liefeld, Walter L.},
  title = {See, Vision, Eye},
  xref = {NIDNTT},
  volume = {3},
  pages = {511-521}
}
\end{filecontents}
\usepackage[style=sbl]{biblatex}
\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}
\pagestyle{empty}
\begin{document}
\cite[s.v.~\mkbibquote{Onycha}]{HBD}

\cite[s.vv.~{\mkbibquote{Alamoth},} \mkbibquote{Sheminith}]{HBD}

\cite[20, s.v.~\mkbibquote{ubšukkinakku}]{CAD}

\cite{dahn+liefeld:see+vision+eye}

\printbibliography
\printbiblist{abbreviations}
\end{document}

[folofjc]

Yes, there were no examples for BDAG and HALOT in the original handbook and I've really only seen them like you mention. In fact I've never seen a book reference anything using s.v. or s.vv. But probably most stuff I use is not technical enough.

I have NEVER seen anyone cite any dictionary or lexicon with s.v. or s.vv. I have no idea why they decided to do that.

Doesn't https://sblhs2.com/2017/04/13/citing-reference-works-5-topical-dictionaries-and-encyclopedias/ suggest that only the sub-entry goes in the bib? And the full work in list of abbreviations.

Ah, yes, you are right. I was reading the two sections together.

For the unsigned articles, I think it's easiest to reference the full work rather than create a separate entry. This kind of thing will get you most of the way to the blog (except for the new abbreviation format which isn't properly handled in old version—this could probably be fixed without too much trouble).

Ah, okay, yeah that works. Thanks for the help!

Just so I am sure, the difference between CAD and HBD is that when citing something from CAD, the first thing in the brackets is a number. So your code knows that if the posttext has a number, then don't put a comma after the abbreviation?

I think I'll close this now.

[dcpurton]

Just so I am sure, the difference between CAD and HBD is that when citing something from CAD, the first thing in the brackets is a number. So your code knows that if the posttext has a number, then don't put a comma after the abbreviation?

Yeah, the style tries to make a guess whether their should be a comma or a space based on whether a shorthand is in use and whether the reference has multiple volumes. I'm pretty sure it will fail some times, which is why in the new version I have been stricter in requiring \volcite when citing a volume.