[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why does refer(1) have no database field for "edition"?

From: Peter Schaffter
Subject: Re: Why does refer(1) have no database field for "edition"?
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 13:05:15 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)

On Mon, Aug 02, 2021, Oliver Corff wrote:
> I also have a few more fields on my wish list, like for
> translator, and subsequently, original title.

In mom, the translator field identifier is '%l'.

MLA style, which mom observes, has no rules for the inclusion of the
original title of a translated work, presumably because if you're
citing a translation, the name of the original is not significant
for the purposes of research or verification, at least not in a
list of Works Cited.  MLA recommends that if you want to convey the
original title of a translated work, the original name should appear
in your prose.

That said, it you don't want to follow MLA punctiliously, you could
co-opt mom's '%t' identifier (original title of a work if the
citation is from a reprint with a different title).  Thus, %T would
be the title of the translation, and %t would be the original title.

%t would have to be slightly modified in om.tmac (the macro ref*add-t)
because the prefix to %t includes "Rpt. of".  It's an easy change to

> Perhaps, but this is really just a wish, it would be great to
> include a mechanism for a more flexible choice of bibliography
> styles.

Agreed, but it's a big job.  Even working from refer.tmac (APA?
Chicago?), it took weeks to set up MLA in mom and iron out the bugs.

Peter Schaffter

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]