[osis-core] OT Quote in NT

[Troy A. Griffitts]

>> We should be:
>>
>>     ...conceiving of them as a container for
>>     a quotation itself.
>>
...
> Anyway, this thread seems to be going nowhere fast.  And I agree we need
> to use <q> according to the plain English sense of quotation, but I
> think you're imposing restrictions on it that are not part of the plain
> English sense.

I may be, but don't think so.  I think I fairly understand how most 
people use the english word _quote_ in a sentence, but think it differs 
from their usage of the QUOTE(",',`, et. al.) symbols in writing.

> Above is a block quotation, clearly a quotation, but without the
> criterion you seem to cite, that the quotation be marked by quotation
> marks.

Yes, it was meant, as my other written quote examples, to keep in front 
of us usages of written quotes.  However, your <cite> of my criterion, 
above, luckily did not contain QUOTE (") marks because it ignored a 
pointed specifically included in the criteria.  To quote (is quoting 
oneself arrogant? :)):

	"Just to sum up:

	I believe that <q> SHOULD always be renderABLE [CAPS mine (mine, this 
time around)] with QUOTE (", ', `, et. al.)"


	The point exemplified above is that using <q type="blockQuote"> is 
renderable with quotes just fine, without changing the legal obligations 
of the author.

	Rendering a loose citation with QUOTE (") marks is a different story.



To sum up:


	I think we both understand the definition of the English word _quote_. 
  Thank you for the citation of the dictionary definitions.

	I think we both mostly understand, and mostly agree about, when it is 
appropriate to use QUOTE(") symbols in written documents.

	Thank you for bringing to the front what seems the real difference in 
our discussion:

	Do we assign to the usage of <q> the definition of the English word 
_quote_, which would be perfectly valid, or

	Do we assign to the usage of <q> the same usage (a very real, unique, 
and different thing) as the proper rules for the written symbol of 
QUOTE(", ', `, et. al.)


	If we do the former, then we need a very real, unique, and 
differentiable mechanism to claim the latter when using <q>

	My vote is still for the latter.


	-Troy.

PS.  From Webster's Unabridged:

Quotation marks (Print.), two inverted commas placed at the beginning, 
and two apostrophes at the end, of a passage quoted from an author in 
his own words.
	


   The subject line you chose likewise suggests that you think OT
> quotations found in the NT are quotations.

> 
> I think the pertinent definitions of "quotation" from the OED are:
> 
> 3b. To copy out or repeat a passage or passages from. Also, to repeat a
> statement by (someone); to give (a person's name) as the authority for a
> statement.
> 
> 4a. To copy out or repeat (a passage, statement, etc.) from a book,
> document, speech, etc., with some indication that one is giving the
> words of another (unless this would otherwise be known). Also transf.,
> of a composer or musical composition: to reproduce or repeat (a passage
> or tune that forms part of another piece of music).
> 
> Using <q> according to the plain sense of quotation permits us to 
> capture all of the uses described by Kirk (though they might deserve 
> types additional to those I enumerated previously).
> 
>> PS.  Not to lose site, I'm still hoping for an element/mechanism apart 
>> from <q> to markup OT allusions found in the New Testament regularly 
>> marked with SMALL CAPS in modern, literal translations.
> 
> 
> I'll sum up my position in a separate message.
> 
> --Chris
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> osis-core mailing list
> osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> http://www.bibletechnologieswg.org/mailman/listinfo/osis-core