感謝大家的意見。作為這部聖經的排版人員，我強烈同意 Shegnada 的評論，即 SFM 都是關於標記意義的，排版人員可以決定樣式應該是粗體/斜體或其他。因此，標記是關於意義，而不是格式。
我理解使用 \fq 和 \fqa 來顯示替代譯法的概念。我們在這部翻譯中通常不這樣做。
在這部翻譯的許多腳註中，翻譯者將詞語作為 \fk 重複在腳註中。例如，在提後 3:8 中，在「Jannes 和 Jambres」短語之後有一個腳註，如下所示：
\f * \fr 3:8 \fk Jannes and Jambres \ft They were Pharoah’s workers…
在印刷文本中，它看起來像這樣：
*3:8 Jannes and Jambres They were Pharoah’s workers…
在我查看的大多數參考文本中，腳註沒有這種重複（它們只有 \ft 沒有 \fk），但我認為這個專案希望有這種重複，因此腳註提供了一些獨立於文本的資訊。
但考慮一下當你想使用的「關鍵字」是總結或從文本中提取的情況。考慮一下關於所多瑪和蛾摩拉的腳註。如果文本中直接有「Sodom and Gomorrah」，那麼只需在短語末尾放置一個腳註標記，並使用「Sodom and Gomorrah」作為關鍵字。但如果你想對這段經文（耶 23:14）加腳註呢：
They are all like Sodom to me;
the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.”
如果你想對「Sodom and Gomorrah」加腳註，但這些詞在文本中是分開的，你會怎麼做？我可以想像在 Gomorrah 之後放置一個腳註。該腳註可能使用 \fqa 替代標記，這樣 Paratext 就不會因為該短語不在文本中而標記錯誤（我會將 \fqa 格式化為與 \fk 相同）：
\f * \fr 23:14 \fqa Sodom and Gomorrah \ft This story is found in…
或者我可以想像對個別單詞使用 \fk：
\f * \fr 23:14 \fk Sodom \ft and \fk Gomorrah \ft This story is found in…
但你可能需要在最後一個 \fk 後面加一個冒號，因為「and」會與後面的 \ft 格式化得相同，所以我不確定沒有冒號的話，是否有足夠的區別來將關鍵字與腳註文本分開。（而且我們通常沒有在 \fk 和 \ft 之間使用冒號…）
總之，如果你是我，你會如何處理這個例子？還有其他什麼建議嗎？
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?
