Hi,

how do you get the dagger of a deceased author (style=numeric-comp)? I
tried to change the order of first and last name and the dagger, but
either the dagger is before the author, or the entry is scrambled. What
is the correct sequence?

@BOOK{Rul-12,
AUTHOR = {Rulandus, M., {\textdagger}},
TITLE = {Lexicon Alchemiæ sive dictionarium alchemisticum cum
obscuriorum verbum \& rerum hermeticarum tum Theophrast-Paracelsicarum
phrasium planam explicationem continens},
YEAR = {1612},
PUBLISHER = {Zachariah Palthenus},
address = {Frankfurt (DE)},
related = {Wai-93},
relatedtype = {translated},
url = {https://books.google.be/books?id=BhIOAAAAQAAJ&hl=de},
isbn = {3487006316},
}

@BOOK{Wai-93,
AUTHOR = {Rulandus, M., {\textdagger}},
TITLE = {A Lexicon of Alchemy. Or Alchemical Dictionary
Containing a Full and Plain Explanation of All Obscure Words, Hermetic
Subjects, and Arcane Phrases of Paracelsus},
translator = {Waite, A.E.},
YEAR = {1893},
PUBLISHER = {J.M. Watkins},
address = {London (UK)},
isbn = {1417984341},
url = {https://archive.org/details/rvalandvs-alchemical-
lexicon},
}

Thanks

Engelbert

On 07/07/2023 12:01, Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:
> How do you get the dagger of a deceased author (style=numeric-comp)?
> I tried to change the order of first and last name and the dagger,
> but either the dagger is before the author, or the entry is
> scrambled. What is the correct sequence?

I don't know if there is an official answer, but if you enclose the
author in an additional set of braces, it will be treated as a single
object and not parsed. Is the comma needed? It looks odd.

AUTHOR = {{Rulandus, M. \textdagger}},

Maybe if you need the surname to be parsed,

AUTHOR = {Rulandus, {M. \textdagger}},

Or maybe better if you're using biblatex:

AUTHOR = {Rulandus, {M. †}},

Peter

In article <kgrg2jF9okU1@mid.individual.net>, peter@silmaril.ie says...
>
> On 07/07/2023 12:01, Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:
> > How do you get the dagger of a deceased author (style=numeric-comp)?
> > I tried to change the order of first and last name and the dagger,
> > but either the dagger is before the author, or the entry is
> > scrambled. What is the correct sequence?
>
> I don't know if there is an official answer, but if you enclose the
> author in an additional set of braces, it will be treated as a single
> object and not parsed. Is the comma needed? It looks odd.
>
> AUTHOR = {{Rulandus, M. \textdagger}},
>
> Maybe if you need the surname to be parsed,
>
> AUTHOR = {Rulandus, {M. \textdagger}},
>
> Or maybe better if you're using biblatex:
>
> AUTHOR = {Rulandus, {M. ?}},
>
> Peter

Yes, AUTHOR = {{M. Rulandus \textdagger}} works for this citation style.
If one had to switch to a style where the first name comes after the
last, one would have to change the .bib-file. At least, I can continue
now, thanks

Engelbert

Am Fri, 7 Jul 2023 13:01:48 +0200 schrieb Dr Engelbert Buxbaum:

> Hi,
>
> how do you get the dagger of a deceased author (style=numeric-comp)? I
> tried to change the order of first and last name and the dagger, but
> either the dagger is before the author, or the entry is scrambled. What
> is the correct sequence?
>
> @BOOK{Rul-12,
> AUTHOR = {Rulandus, M., {\textdagger}},

You should use an annotation, see 3.7 Data Annotations in the
biblatex documentation. But it sounds rather odd to mark up authors
as deceased in the bibliography, I never saw that done. Why should
that be needed for a work from 1612?

--
Ulrike Fischer
http://www.troubleshooting-tex.de/

In article <1e0vptt8ii0m5.dlg@nililand.de>, news3@nililand.de says...
> But it sounds rather odd to mark up authors
> as deceased in the bibliography, I never saw that done. Why should
> that be needed for a work from 1612?

The point is that the author was deceased already when the book was
published, using a manuscript found in his estate. We therefore do not
know which changes (if any) he would have made if he had not been
prevented from doing so, and even if he would have published the book at
all.

On 2023-07-16 10:59:35 +0000, Dr Engelbert Buxbaum said:

> In article <1e0vptt8ii0m5.dlg@nililand.de>, news3@nililand.de says...
>> But it sounds rather odd to mark up authors
>> as deceased in the bibliography, I never saw that done. Why should
>> that be needed for a work from 1612?
>
> The point is that the author was deceased already when the book was
> published, using a manuscript found in his estate. We therefore do not
> know which changes (if any) he would have made if he had not been
> prevented from doing so, and even if he would have published the book at
> all.

Now that I understand why you want to do that (which puzzled me
earlier), I think you have a good point. If I were doing it, I would
include a note in the bib file:

note = {Published posthumously},

I'm not of course suggesting that you need to do it as I would, but my
approach is very simple and doesn't require the reader to know exactly
what the dagger means.

--
Athel cb

Am Sun, 16 Jul 2023 12:59:35 +0200 schrieb Dr Engelbert Buxbaum:

> In article <1e0vptt8ii0m5.dlg@nililand.de>, news3@nililand.de says...
>> But it sounds rather odd to mark up authors
>> as deceased in the bibliography, I never saw that done. Why should
>> that be needed for a work from 1612?
>
> The point is that the author was deceased already when the book was
> published, using a manuscript found in his estate. We therefore do not
> know which changes (if any) he would have made if he had not been
> prevented from doing so, and even if he would have published the book at
> all.

Ah. Well this a data about the work (that it has been published
late) not about the author. It would confuse readers imho if an
author is sometimes marked as deceased and sometimes not (for works
published before the death). So I quite agree with Athel and would
put the info in the note or (in biblatex) in the howpublished field.

--
Ulrike Fischer
http://www.troubleshooting-tex.de/

On 2023-07-17, Ulrike Fischer <news3@nililand.de> wrote:
> Am Sun, 16 Jul 2023 12:59:35 +0200 schrieb Dr Engelbert Buxbaum:
>
>> In article <1e0vptt8ii0m5.dlg@nililand.de>, news3@nililand.de says...
>>> But it sounds rather odd to mark up authors
>>> as deceased in the bibliography, I never saw that done. Why should
>>> that be needed for a work from 1612?
>>
>> The point is that the author was deceased already when the book was
>> published, using a manuscript found in his estate. We therefore do not
>> know which changes (if any) he would have made if he had not been
>> prevented from doing so, and even if he would have published the book at
>> all.
>
> Ah. Well this a data about the work (that it has been published
> late) not about the author. It would confuse readers imho if an
> author is sometimes marked as deceased and sometimes not (for works
> published before the death). So I quite agree with Athel and would
> put the info in the note or (in biblatex) in the howpublished field.

I do agree. The dagger has a conventional meaning, that the author is
dead. Thus marking an author from the 17 century with a dagger is liable
to completely confuse the reader (eg are you implying that there are a
bunch of authors from earlier centuries that are still alive-- vampires
perhaps?) Or you need a explanation of what the dagger means to you. You
probably do not want to confuse the reader.

>

On 2023-07-17 18:41:48 +0000, William Unruh said:

> On 2023-07-17, Ulrike Fischer <news3@nililand.de> wrote:
>> Am Sun, 16 Jul 2023 12:59:35 +0200 schrieb Dr Engelbert Buxbaum:
>>
>>> In article <1e0vptt8ii0m5.dlg@nililand.de>, news3@nililand.de says...
>>>> But it sounds rather odd to mark up authors
>>>> as deceased in the bibliography, I never saw that done. Why should
>>>> that be needed for a work from 1612?
>>>
>>> The point is that the author was deceased already when the book was
>>> published, using a manuscript found in his estate. We therefore do not
>>> know which changes (if any) he would have made if he had not been
>>> prevented from doing so, and even if he would have published the book at
>>> all.
>>
>> Ah. Well this a data about the work (that it has been published
>> late) not about the author. It would confuse readers imho if an
>> author is sometimes marked as deceased and sometimes not (for works
>> published before the death). So I quite agree with Athel and would
>> put the info in the note or (in biblatex) in the howpublished field.
>
> I do agree. The dagger has a conventional meaning, that the author is
> dead.

OK in principle, but not necessarily in practice. For example, see DOI
10.1128/IAI.69.9.5679–5688.2001: five authors, of whom one has a
dagger, but she's certainly not dead.

> Thus marking an author from the 17 century with a dagger is liable
> to completely confuse the reader (eg are you implying that there are a
> bunch of authors from earlier centuries that are still alive-- vampires
> perhaps?) Or you need a explanation of what the dagger means to you. You
> probably do not want to confuse the reader.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

In article <1sfox22wqy68m$.dlg@nililand.de>, news3@nililand.de says...
>
> Ah. Well this a data about the work (that it has been published
> late) not about the author. It would confuse readers imho if an
> author is sometimes marked as deceased and sometimes not (for works
> published before the death). So I quite agree with Athel and would
> put the info in the note or (in biblatex) in the howpublished field.

I see your point, thanks.