<foreign> clarifications and more alternatives

[raffazizzi]

This PR attempts to clarify and offer alternatives to the use of <foreign> in multilingual texts, or texts originating from multilingual contexts. See #2786.

I am initially setting this as draft to prompt feedback and suggestions on the proposed changes.

[ebeshero]

These strike me as sensible edits, and the example is brilliant! (Don't forget to add the source to BIB!)

[ebeshero]

Perfect example!

[martindholmes]

These changes are a definite improvement. The only quibbles I have are tiny and have nothing to do with the intent or motivation for the ticket.

I liked the new example with Latin (which is technically foreign to everyone now), up to "Bee Master", but the following sentence threw me because I have no idea what the text is, so the sudden mention of wax-moths let me momentarily puzzled. I don't think that final sentence is needed (although it might be enjoyable if you happen to know the text), and if I put myself in the position of a non-native, non-European speaker I can imagine reaching for a dictionary to find out what a wax-moth is and wondering how it's relevant to the "foreign" thing. So I would lose that sentence.

In the Scots example, though, I feel there's somehow not enough context for the words to mean anything much; perhaps it would help to gloss the phrase, again to help non-native speakers: " = 'a [great] deal of sole', or a substantial sole" (assuming that's what it actually means).

I wonder about mentioning <emph> here:

In these cases it is also preferable to use <gi>seg</gi> with the appropriate <att>xml:lang</att>, or <gi>emph</gi> if the text is emphasized.

If a term in a different language from the surrounding text is distinguished in some way such as italicization, I think it's most likely going to be because it's in another language rather than because it's being emphasized, and in any case, how would you distinguish the two? Perhaps it's unwise to suggest that simply being in another language might constitute a kind of emphasis. But I see your example below uses it. Is "fils" really emphasized, or just in another language and therefore italicized?

None of these are a big deal for me, though. If you want to go ahead and merge, I'll be happy.

[lb42]

The wax moth example is not new! I chose it many years ago.

[raffazizzi]

Thanks @martindholmes . I think @joeytakeda has asked his team for other Scots examples, so we may end up with a clearer one.

In the "fils" example, the emphasis is editorial; that is, the source document is a manuscript, but the editors want the word italicized because it is in another language than its surrounding text. At same time they don't want to call it foreign because it is't in the historical context of the document. Perhaps a <seg rend="italic" xml:lang="fr">fils</seg> would be more neutral and achieve the same effect...

[lb42]

Surely that would imply that the word was italicised in the original ms? If this is all about how to render the markup in the edited version thats a job for the render ing software not the markup methinks.

[raffazizzi]

Right, yes – this is probably not a good enough example to justify the use of <emph> as an alternative to <foreign>. It can still work for showcasing using <seg>.

[lb42]

Also, while I'm here, I think an example using <distinct> would also be useful here. Happy to look for one !

[martindholmes]

@lb42 Sorry, I must have missed the wax moth example before, or never focused on it. But my comment still stands: I think it would present a barrier to a non-native speaker (or even a native speaker who finds it difficult to skip over a puzzle).

[martindholmes]

@raffazizzi If "fils" is not italicized in the original, then presumably there's no signal to say that it is emphasized in the original at all, so <seg xml:lang="fr"> would probably be safest.

[trishaoconnor]

Thank you @raffazizzi for your time and effort in adding this extra clarification and guidance. I welcome these edits, I agree that this is a definitive improvement to the Guidelines chapter. I like the example provided for <emph> but I understand the concerns already raised here. Hopefully, the example that @joeytakeda has volunteered to search for would provide a better use case for .
I only have one small suggestion for line 587 in the CO chapter so that it is consistent with the phrasing of the rest of the edits.

[trishaoconnor]

Perhaps "should additionally not be used to represent words in a different language which are mentioned or glossed within the text..." to be consistent with the changes above and below?

[raffazizzi]

The Keywords of Black Louisiana team also provided English translations of the documents (in French+Spanish) that they edited. They used emph[@xml:lang] instead of foreign whenever they retained in the translation original terminology in French or Spanish from the documents. I would say that in these cases the words are indeed foreign to English, but the editors didn't want to impose "foreignness" even on the translation of this multi-lingual and culturally sensitive material.

Is this too unique a stance for the Guidelines? I think it's legitimate. Note that in this case the emph is the TEI's authors emphasis rather than the being derived from a source document.

Here is an example that could be added to the chapter instead of the one I presented earlier.

<p>
   <lb/>When asked about the statement of
      the <emph xml:lang="fr">sauvagesses</emph> he
   <lb/>replied no, he answers the question. 
</p>

Which is the editor's translation of:

<p>
     <lb/>Intérogé Surla Cite du sauvagesses il
     <lb/>répond que non, Il répond l'interoge… 
 </p>

[lb42]

Wouldnt <distinct> be more appropriate than <emph> here?

…

________________________________ From: Raff Viglianti ***@***.***> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2025 5:26 PM To: TEIC/TEI ***@***.***> Cc: Lou Burnard ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [TEIC/TEI] <foreign> clarifications and more alternatives (PR #2814) [https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/144770?s=20&v=4]raffazizzi left a comment (TEIC/TEI#2814)<#2814 (comment)> The Keywords of Black Louisiana team also provided English translations of the documents (in French+Spanish) that they edited. They used ***@***.***:lang] instead of foreign whenever they retained in the translation original terminology in French or Spanish from the documents. I would say that in these cases the words are indeed foreign to English, but the editors didn't want to impose "foreignness" even on the translation of this multi-lingual and culturally sensitive material. Is this too unique a stance for the Guidelines? I think it's legitimate. Note that in this case the emph is the TEI's authors emphasis rather than the being derived from a source document. Here is an example that could be added to the chapter instead of the one I presented earlier. <p> <lb/>When asked about the statement of the <emph xml:lang="fr">sauvagesses</emph> he <lb/>replied no, he answers the question. </p> Which is the editor's translation of: <p> <lb/>Intérogé Surla Cite du sauvagesses il <lb/>répond que non, Il répond l'interoge… </p> — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#2814 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFBJ5H7UIZTJHDT4DMU4C33UAPK7AVCNFSM6AAAAACGVQAAR6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTGMRQGAZTANZTGA>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>