\fk versus \fq in footnotes

Question

I’m trying to wrap my head around the differences between \fk and \fq. One project has always been using \fk for bits of text quoted from the text, but now that we are having to use \fqa for quotes drawn from the text but not quite identical (to avoid the checking error), I’m beginning to think that all of their \fk’s should be \fq’s. But then when should you use \fk? The USFM reference doesn’t help much; it just says one is a quote and one is a keyword. But what are the use cases?

Answer 1

Thanks, Mark. I think I had known this at one point, but with my bad memory and all…

As I was looking at some specific footnote examples in this translation, I think that using ellipses will help in some cases, but I think in other cases I will just need to use \fqa, and make sure they are formatted the same as \fk and \fq in the typesetting. Consider this example (PSA 105:21):

He made him master of his household,
ruler over all he possessed,

The footnote they want goes like this:

\f * \fr 105:21 \fqa The King of Egypt made Joseph ruler \ft You can find this story…

As you can see, they want a “functional” keyword that summarizes (and makes clear) the situation being described in these verses, and the story that is being referred to. The King of Egypt is mentioned in v20, but Joseph is only mentioned (except by pronouns) back in v17! So obviously ellipses won’t help us in this case.

OK, so I think my (most likely) path forward is to use \fq for keywords and quotations that are in the text, to use \fq with ellipses where that makes sense, and to use \fqa for these “functional” keyword/quotes that aren’t in the text, and make sure they are formatted the same in the typesetting. (I think using \fq would be preferable to \fk because it is more parallel to \fqa, and should be easier for the team to remember, i.e. “you should use either \fq or \fqa, depending on whether it is in the text or not”.)

Any last thoughts or suggestions?

Comments

The \fk and \fq markers identify different types of text (similar, for sure, but different). According to the USFM documentation for footnotes, The \fk marker identifies a word or phrase (drawn from the text) that sets the tone for the footnote, subtly defining the reason for the footnote. The \fq marker identifies text within the running text of a footnote that is quoted material from the verse. Theoretically, all three types (\fk, \fq, and \fqa) could be used within the same footnote (though this would likely be rare).

To the point that @Shegnada and @jeffh make about marking meaning, @anon044949’s article could use some revision to help clarify the correct use of \fk.

---

This looks old but it came up again so I will comment. I have two points to make, then I would like to hear specific ways my article should be revised since it is meant to help and not confuse users. I am sorry if my Blog has added to user’s confusion.

1. \fqa is to give alternate readings of the Greek or Hebrew. There are situations where the Greek can be understood more than one way, though often the alternate reading is awkward English.
   Things like:
   2Th 1:12
   \fq our God and of the Lord\ft or \fqa our God and Lord.\f*
   Another example is in the Lord’s prayer:
   where “deliver us from evil” can be legitimately understood as “deliver us from the Evil one.”
2. I agree that when a footnote is defining or commenting on a term the \fk is the better marker to use since the type of data is more a keyword than it is a quotation. The point of my article was to use the quoted text check to keep one’s footnotes consistent with the text as editing is done. The only way to “activate” the link between the text and the footnote that makes the check work is to highlight the word or words in the text then create the footnote. Manually, typing \fk in a footnote does not establish the link between the text and the footnote. I have since been told by Phil Leckrone that you can simply change the \fq to a \fk then the word is marked as a keyword and the quotation check works. I have tried this and it works. I have not seen this documented anywhere, and I think the UI should give the user the choice when making a footnote as to whether the highlighted word(s) are to be \fq or \fk. If I were to edit my blog post, I would add this work around. Again I agree that \fq and \fk are marking different types of content and we want to quoted text check to check both.

Ok, I just checked Help in the current version of PT and about quoted text check it says:
Quoted Text

Checks that quoted text in a footnote (after the \fk or the \fq marker) or in a cross reference (after the \xk or the \xq marker) matches text in the verse where the footnote or cross reference is located.
It does not mention the procedure, but you highlight the word(s) in the text, press Ctr+T, then change the \fq to \fk, as needed. Similarly for cross references, highlight the word(s), press Shift Ctr+T, and change the \xq to \xk as needed.

---

Sorry for the delayed response, but thank you very much for this clarification. You identified well the issues involved, especially here:

anon044949:

I agree that when a footnote is defining or commenting on a term the \fk is the better marker to use since the type of data is more a keyword than it is a quotation.

Also, you clarified that the quotation basic check works with \fk.

I appreciate your help!

---

Since you mention alternative readings and suggest to use \fqa. Do we have something else for alternative rendering? Because alternative readings and alternative renderings are different.

---

While I fully accept that \fqa shouldn’t be used to mark a less-than-exact quotation of the text, what should be used?
e.g. what is appropriate to use here?
it measured 50 cubits\f + \ft A \fk cubit\fk* was about half a metre.\f*

Even if \fq / fk checking accepted this in English (I’ve not checked), in a language where singular / plural means picking between two distinct suffixes the fq/fk checking will object to such grammatical necessities, but it would still be good to provide distinctive markup for the referring word.

---

I believe it should be (if using \fk):
it measured 50 cubits\f + \fk cubits\ft A cubit was about half a metre.\f*

Answer 2

I am also interested in receiving more information if I am wrong, but I currently understand the use of these as well:

The difference between \fk and \fq is only about translation style. The use is the same: “quote a word or phrase that must be written exactly the same in the verse” (the same applies for \xk and \xq).

Both labels show the text in italics but \fk also highlights it in bold.
Then \fqa adds italics but accepts that the text is not “exactly the same as the verse”.
This can be used either to quote a phrase or to add italics to an explanation (as in Revelation 13:1 in NIV84).

The extra thing about \fk and \fq is that they allow us to ask Paratext to review when we want to quote a text exactly as in the verse. This is useful if we want Paratext to warn us if the spelling of the quoted word or phrase changes in the future.

P.S.: \fk and \fq accept suspension points, as in Genesis 30:32 in DHHE (spanish Bible).

(I’m sorry about the English, I used deepl.com)
anon689242.

Comments

Here’s how I interpret the
difference.

•         \fq usually comes with an
  

  \fqa as an alternate translation.

•         \fk, while also matching
  

  text that precedes the footnote, probably has some
  explanation of the term.
  While the Quoted Text
  check treats both the same way, the above description to me
  explains the difference in their uses.

---

USFM is truly about marking the meaning components of the text and much less about how the text appears since once a text is properly marked, every USFM can have its appearance changed as desired at the time of output.

I teach our teams that \fq and \fqa are used when we are talking about two different ways of translating a text or perhaps two different original sources of meaning. So \fq and \fqa normally appear in the same footnote. \fq quotes what is found in the text and \fqa suggests an alternate.

\fk is used more for explaining the meaning of a word or phrase and could be used in lieu of or in conjunction with a glossary.

In practicality, I don’t really insist on this as the ability of our teams varies widely, I just ask for consistency in how they choose to use the markers so that the reader is able to understand clearly.

Blessings,

Shegnada James

Answer 3

Thanks all for the input. As the person who is doing the typesetting for this Bible, I strongly agree with Shegnada’s comment that SFMs are all about marking the meaning, and the typesetter can work out whether a style should be bold/italic or whatever. So the marking is about meaning, not formatting.

I understand the concept about using \fq and \fqa to show an alternate rendering. We aren’t generally doing that in this translation.

In a lot of the footnotes in this translation, the translators are duplicating the word(s) as \fk in the footnote. For example, in 2TI 3:8, there is a footnote after the phrase Jannes and Jambres, which is like this:

\f * \fr 3:8 \fk Jannes and Jambres \ft They were Pharoah’s workers…

In the printed text it comes out like this:

*3:8 Jannes and Jambres They were Pharoah’s workers…

In most resource texts I looked at, footnotes don’t have this duplication (they would just have \ft without \fk), but I think for this project they want to have that duplication, so the footnote provides information somewhat independently of the text.

But consider when the “keyword” that you want to use is summarized or extracted from the text. Consider a footnote for Sodom and Gomorrah. If you have “Sodom and Gomorrah” directly in the text, then just put a footnote marker at the end of the phrase and use a keyword of “Sodom and Gomorrah”. But what if you wanted to footnote it on this passage (JER 23:14):

They are all like Sodom to me;
the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.”

If you wanted to put a footnote on “Sodom and Gomorrah”, but the words are split up as in this text, what would you do? I could imagine putting a footnote after Gomorrah. That footnote might use the \fqa alternate marker, so Paratext doesn’t flag an error because that phrase isn’t in the text (and I would format \fqa the same as \fk):

\f * \fr 23:14 \fqa Sodom and Gomorrah \ft This story is found in…

Or I could imagine using \fk on the individual words:

\f * \fr 23:14 \fk Sodom \ft and \fk Gomorrah \ft This story is found in…

But you would probably need a colon after the last \fk, as the “and” would be formatted the same as the later \ft, so I’m not sure there would be enough distinction between them to set off the keyword from the footnote text without the colon. (And we haven’t generally been using colons between \fk and \ft…)

Anyway, if you were me, how would you treat this example? Any other words of wisdom?

Comments

It is also possible to use … to ‘hide/skip’ words (ellipsis?)
within the \fq text and still pass all the checks. (i.e. you don’t
necessarily have to use \fqa).

For example, in the text we have:

\v 28 Having heard these words, everyone in the ``synagogue`` became very angry at him.``*

HTML clipboard

And the footnote has:

`   \f * `

\fr 4:28 \fq everyone...became very angry at him \ft Because he told that God helped others instead of the Israelites.``\f*
HTML clipboard

So you could also use:

`         \f * \fr 23:14 \fq Sodom ... Gomorrah \ft This story is found

in…`

---

Only use \fqa if the text that
follows is an alternate translation. If the text you are
quoting for th e\fq has punctuation early in te text, I think
you have to show the text including that punctuation in the
content of the \fq before you use the ellipsis.

      Note also that if you quote

some other text in the footnote you can ha0ve multiple \fq’s.

Answer 4

anon542642:

it measured 50 cubits\f + \ft A \fk cubit\fk* was about half a metre.\f*

If I were you, I would just replace the \fk…\fk* with \fqa…\fqa*, and just make sure that your typesetting (or style file) has the same formatting for both styles. Yes, you don’t get the checking of Paratext, but if that’s the style of the footnote text that you want (rather than the repeated “cubit”), you shouldn’t be forced to use something else. Since you don’t get the automated checking, then just add a manual check before publishing - find all \fqa’s, and verify that they accurately represent (in some way) the text.

Here’s an idea for the developers… as glossary entries can have different surface forms from glossary entries, how about putting the text that should be found in the text after a vertical bar, in this case like this:

A \k cubit|cubits\k*

This would mean that you should put “cubit” in the footnote text (in whatever style is appropriate for \k), but the Paratext checks would look for “cubits” in the text. This would mean that people wouldn’t have to use \fqa for something that it wasn’t designed for, and you would be able to get the text confirmation on all of your key terms.