[grammatim[_2_]]

We could discuss the theory of bibliographic style if you'd like, but
this probably isn't the right place ... I live in both worlds.
Linguistics these days rigorously uses author-date, but philology
still uses author-short title (in footnotes), and each has its merits.
(Linguistics, until recently, was a very small field, and everyone had
read everything, so author-date references were instantly
recognizable; and that could well be valid for workers in any very
small field.) And when I'm earning my living by copyediting, I have to
do whatever the respective publisher requires, even APA style, which
(having grown up on Chicago style) I find pretty silly in several
places.

On Oct 23, 12:41*pm, p0 wrote:
It depends on the style. A lot of legal styles want both, full in-text
citation (through footnotes) and a bibliographic list. I guess it
makes it easier for people wanting to look stuff up.

You are right on it being redundant. But you have to admit that most
bibliographic styles are not really an example of smart thinking or
the result of bright minds at work. Compared to author-date styles,
this "William Giles Campbell" style is more redundant but also more
intelligent. It is not uncommon for someone to write multiple articles
(conferences, journals, book sections) a year. The described system
makes it easy for the reader to know what is being cited. In an
ordinary author-date system, is not only the formatting harder (you
need to display more or less authors, add a suffix to the year, ...),
its result is also meaningless for most people reading the work. They
have no idea who "Doe" is, and even if they do, how should they know
what "Doe" wrote sometime during 2008. A reference number pointing to
the bibliography at the end would be just as clear and a lot less
redundant. It also wouldn't require some complex formatting scheme. If
you really wanted a scheme similar to author-date which would be
useful for ordinary people, then at least the title should be somehow
included as it tells more about the work being cited than the name of
the author does.

Yves

On 23 okt, 16:18, grammatim wrote:



Footnotes like that, with full bibliographical information, are
normally only done when nobibliography(reference list) is provided
at all. Otherwise, the redundancy is immense.

On Oct 23, 9:17*am, p0 wrote:

MLAin-text citations consist out of authors only (e.g.: (Doe and Doe)
and (Beethoven)). So what he asks for is not just switching from
italics to underline, but rather a rewrite of the entire in-text/
footnotecitation(notbibliography) formatting routine.

Although this is possible, it requires a lot of work. So much work in
fact that I doubt anyone will be able to help him.

Yves
--http://www.codeplex.com/bibliography

On 23 okt, 13:57, grammatim wrote:

Usually a typed underline is a makeshift replacement for italics: can
you check with whoever is requiring this style whether you can
substitute italics?

On Oct 23, 3:40*am, Jan wrote:

Hey guys,

i need a special type ofbibliographystyle, called "William Giles
Campbell's: Form and Style: Thesis, Reports, Term Papers".
I found that the built inMLAStyle fits in thebibliography, but for the
footnote citations i need the following format:
Jacob Brownowski, The Ascent of Man -underlined, (Boston: Little, Brown,
1973).

If someone can help me it would be great!
Thanks!-