Timeline for Using code spans to format words in another language?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 1, 2023 at 4:13 | comment | added | Elements In Space | Unfortuantely, the font on this site has slanted italics rather than true italics, so the emphasised text doesn't standout very much. | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:56 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://russian.stackexchange.com/ with https://russian.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:02 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jun 15, 2012 at 3:57 | comment | added | kotekzot | @Cerberus thanks for your input, that sounds fairly reasonable. I'm still holding my breath for inline quotes, but if that's not an option I'm going to support italics + translation in parentheses/quotation marks. | |
| Jun 15, 2012 at 3:53 | comment | added | Vitaly | Thanks for the clarification! I'll be fine with whatever formatting style we adopt as our guideline as long as it's uniformly applied and widely accepted in academic literature. | |
| Jun 15, 2012 at 3:49 | comment | added | Cerberus | ... As to quotation marks plus brackets, that is what I personally prefer over quotation marks only, precisely because a translation is functionally parenthetical. However, some find using quotation marks and brackets together a bit superfluous and clutter-like. And we have other situations where we do not mark parenthesis either, as in father Christmas, or as in the article 'Feline Metabolism'. So I think just quotation marks is also fine, although I usually do not use this style myself. At any rate, all three styles are usually fine, and it really doesn't matter much. | |
| Jun 15, 2012 at 3:49 | comment | added | Cerberus | Haha, OK, then comment I shall. I have no problem with 'single quotation marks', "doubles", (round brackets), or ("both"); I have seen all four used in academic literature. There is a small catch with simple round brackets: because they are regularly used for other things in similar contexts, they can sometimes be ambiguous, when they are mistaken for something other than a translation gloss. I have encountered such cases. So one should be aware of the possibility. ... | |
| Jun 15, 2012 at 3:45 | comment | added | Vitaly | @kotekzot Some (admittedly limited) experience with inline glosses in the language-related references I have read and consulted apart, no particular reason at all. Also, as Cerberus pointed out in the EL&U chatroom, you'd have to watch out for ambiguities with bare parentheses. He is more experienced with the formatting practices than I am anyway, and he kindly offered to comment on this issue. | |
| Jun 15, 2012 at 2:51 | comment | added | kotekzot | In my experience, translation notes come in round parentheses, as they are not part of the sentence. Is there any particular reason you prefer single quotation marks? I agree that code should be reserved for actual code. | |
| Jun 14, 2012 at 19:38 | history | edited | Vitaly | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 209 characters in body
|
| Jun 14, 2012 at 19:31 | history | edited | Vitaly | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 209 characters in body
|
| Jun 14, 2012 at 19:15 | history | answered | Vitaly | CC BY-SA 3.0 |