0

I do now know how to show Translated Title in the square brackets right before the dot, meaning that the translation would be in the same section with the title but not in italics.

It should look like this. Whatever I try separates the Translated title from the original one.

Author Last Name, First Name. Original Title [Translated Title]. City of Publication: Publisher, Year Published.

Chicago style citation example:

de Saint-Exupéry, Antoine. Le Petit Prince [The Little Prince]. Paris: Gallimard, 1943.

The packages that I use:

\usepackage[english]{babel}

\usepackage{csquotes}

\usepackage[notes,backend=biber]{biblatex-chicago}

UPDATE:

Thank you for you contribution, however, it does not do the exact formating that I need. I must stick to the example that I have given you. However, there is the thing that I come up with (not very convinient tho)

@book{krasnov,
    address = {Berlin},
    title = {Za chertopolokhom. Fantasticheskii roman \mkbibemph{[Behind the Thistle: a Fantastic Fiction]}},
    shorttitle      = {Za chertopolokhom},
    publisher = {Diakov},
    author = {Krasnov, Petr},
    date = {1922}
}

The end result

moewe
  • 175,683

2 Answers2

2

Turning @moewe's comment into an answer. I think this method is to be preferred. It is almost always a bad idea to insert formatting commands into .bib entries. This defeats the whole purpose of the .bib file being a repository of format-independent data which will be formatted according to the style chosen in the document. When you add formatting information to the .bib file you lose that independence. Additionally, it correctly attaches some semantics to the title translation (i.e., it's a separate element from the title itself.)

\documentclass{article}
\begin{filecontents}[overwrite]{\jobname.bib}
@book{petitprince,
    title={Le Petit Prince},
    titleaddon={The Little Prince},
    author={de Saint-Exupéry, Antoine},
    location={Paris},
    publisher={Gallimard},
    year={1943}
}
    @book{krasnov,
    address={Berlin},
    title={Za chertopolokhom},
    subtitle={Fantasticheskii roman},
    titleaddon={Behind the Thistle: a Fantastic Fiction},
    publisher={Diakov},
    author={Krasnov, Petr},
    year={1922}
}

\end{filecontents} \usepackage{csquotes} \usepackage[notes,ptitleaddon=space, ctitleaddon=space,useprefix=true]{biblatex-chicago} \DeclareFieldFormat{titleaddon}{% \mkbibbrackets{\ifcapital{\MakeCapital{#1\isdot}}{#1\isdot}}} \addbibresource{\jobname.bib} \begin{document} \cite{petitprince,krasnov} \printbibliography \end{document}

output of code

Alan Munn
  • 218,180
  • Would it be wise then to delete my answer so nobody gets confused in the future? – phil-elkabat Aug 06 '20 at 14:18
  • @phil-elkabat The first part of your answer provides an alternative, and although it's not what the OP is requesting, it might help others. So rather than delete your whole answer, perhaps just remove the second part that puts formatting into the .bib file. – Alan Munn Aug 06 '20 at 14:34
  • Thank you, will do! – phil-elkabat Aug 06 '20 at 14:40
  • I know this comes from the example in the question, but one can avoid the repetition of Za chertopolokhom in the .bib file by using the title and subtitle field: title={Za chertopolokhom}, subtitle = {Fantasticheskii roman}, – moewe Aug 06 '20 at 14:52
  • @moewe Good point. That also removes punctuation from the title, which is probably wrong anyway, since a colon is the usual punctuation for subtitles and adding that field gets it right. I've updated the answer. – Alan Munn Aug 06 '20 at 14:57
  • @Alan Munn you guys are precious! Thank you! – Nailya Salimbayeva Aug 07 '20 at 12:13
1

Update

Thanks to moewe's excellent comments, I've been able to vastly improve my answer – thank you!

Better reference the original title

The biblatex-chicago manual (p. 53) is quite clear on this:

The origtitle field isn’t used, while the language and origdate fields have been press-ganged for other duties. The origlanguage field,for its part, retains a dual role in presenting translations in a bibliography. The details of the Manual’s suggested treatment when both a translation and an original are cited may be found below under userf. Here, however, I simply note that the introductory string used to connect the translation’s citation with the original’s is “Originally published as,” which I suggest may well be inaccurate in a great many cases […]

So the preferred way to do this is with a construction like this: The original French book preceded by the English translation you're actually using. You can use the related={petitprince} option to make the relation clear:

@book{littleprince,
  address={New York},
  author={de Saint-Exupéry, Antoine},
  publisher={Reynal \& Hitchcock},
  title={The Little Prince},
  year={1943},
  related={petitprince},
}

@book{petitprince, title={Le Petit Prince}, author={de Saint-Exupéry, Antoine}, publisher={Gallimard}, year={1943}, }

And then quoting like \cite{littleprince} which would give you this:

Originally published as

phil-elkabat
  • 2,055
  • Unless you plan to \nocite{*} the options={dataonly}, in petitprince shouldn't be needed - in fact it actively stops you from being able to cite petitprince in its own right. – moewe Aug 06 '20 at 08:08
  • Re your code example for the second solution, you don't need \usepackage{etoolbox,keyval,ifthen,url}. Those packages are automatically loaded by biblatex (and thus also by biblatex-chicago since it loads biblatex). \usepackage{filecontents} is deprecated in new LaTeX versions (after October 2019). Usually people use \jobname.bib as filename, which will expand to the name of the .tex file being processed and thus give the .bib the same base name as the .tex file. jobname.bib will just call the file jobname. ... – moewe Aug 06 '20 at 08:12
  • ... Strictly speaking \bibliography{jobname.bib} is incorrect: \bibliography takes the file name without the .bib file extension. But on all modern TeX systems the file will still be found (until recently this was not the case in MikTeX). \bibliography{jobname} without .bib would be correct. But in biblatex \addbibresource is preferred over \bibliography and that command needs the file extension. So I'd replace \bibliography{jobname.bib} with \addbibresource{jobname.bib}. – moewe Aug 06 '20 at 08:14
  • Not sure if you are interested in looking at it, but my first thought would have been to use titleaddon. A quick test shows that the formatting isn't quite what the OP hoped for, but it should be possibly to adapt it (though that could get a bit ugly with a highly specialised style such as biblatex-chicago). (I don't have the time to look into that more closely at the moment, so feel free to include that in your answer.) – moewe Aug 06 '20 at 08:17
  • @moewe, fantastic, thank you! I have added your suggestions to the letter. I will test the titleaddon and revise again if necessary. – phil-elkabat Aug 06 '20 at 08:27
  • Thank you, guys for your contribuition! however, it is does not show they way I want it to be meaning exactly like on the example. I am doing my master thesis in Chicago style, so citation rules are pretty strict and I need to follow what i have showed in the example. I am using also Russian books(not translated), where in the title of citation I must include its translation to English in the way it is represented in the example. – Nailya Salimbayeva Aug 06 '20 at 11:48
  • @NailyaSalimbayeva, you will have to be more specific than that. Do you need the title upright and the translation in italics? What else do you need? I have revised the minimal working example to reflect your last update. – phil-elkabat Aug 06 '20 at 12:05
  • A quick look at the code and then at the documentation of biblatex-chicago suggests that titleaddon together with the options ptitleaddon=space, ctitleaddon=space and \DeclareFieldFormat{titleaddon}{% \mkbibbrackets{\ifcapital{\MakeCapital{#1\isdot}}{#1\isdot}}} (modulo line breaks) might work. – moewe Aug 06 '20 at 12:19
  • @moewe, feel free to add to my answer or should I create a mwe containing your comments. Still quite new here, so not sure what is the preferred way… – phil-elkabat Aug 06 '20 at 12:24
  • Thank you for your reply! I need everything just like in my example =) @moewe I will try your suggestion =) – Nailya Salimbayeva Aug 06 '20 at 12:55
  • Re me editing my suggestion into your answer: I usually prefer not to edit other people's answers, especially with an approach or idea they might not have tested and approved themselves (for my answers I usually want to make sure I have tested everything that I post and if someone edits in a solution I haven't tested that makes me feel a bit uneasy). I posted the solution here in the comments because I thought you might want to expand on it a bit and post an MWE in your answer, but Alan got in there before you. – moewe Aug 06 '20 at 15:45
  • @moewe, yeah, this is a part of TeX.se I still have to get used to. TeX-wise I still have to learn a lot, as you can see by the many mistakes I make. Having experts swoosh in while I fry my brains trying to understand a comment like yours is pretty discouraging and might keep people from having to understand things for themselves. This happened to me a couple of times already and I haven't been here long. What is particularly discouraging is when other people's answers get accepted even though I was getting there. Well, seems that's how it is here … – phil-elkabat Aug 06 '20 at 15:56
  • 1
    Sorry if my answer was discouraging. I usually comment too, but there was one comment of yours (now sensibly deleted) that seemed to imply you weren't inclined to follow @moewe's suggestion more, so I added it as a separate answer. Without that comment I would probably have waited. – Alan Munn Aug 06 '20 at 21:38
  • Ah, don't let that get you down too much. In my experience it doesn't happen too often that someone else swoops in with an answer that a previous answer was evolving to in this area of TeX.SX (only about 20% of biblatex questions have two or more answers). In this case I believe it was just a simple miscommunication/misunderstanding. Keep in mind, however, that it is not always easy for other people to tell if and how your answer is going to evolve. ... – moewe Aug 07 '20 at 19:37
  • ... For example when I began writing my answer to https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/557621/35864 your answer essentially said to load biblatex-chicago styles with \usepackage{biblatex-chicago}, which is correct, but was apparently not what the person asking the question wanted to hear: They wanted a solution using \usepackage{biblatex}. So that's what I set out to implement for them. When I had finished my answer it turned out you had come to a similar solution. But that was quite a substantial departure from the original answer you posted. ... – moewe Aug 07 '20 at 19:41
  • ... When started writing my answer and even as I posted my answer I had no idea that and how your answer would change. Sometimes there is only a small window of opportunity to make sure that those asking the question get the best possible answer (before they give up or settle for the second-best solution; of course 'best' here is subjective). In that cases it might not be practical to wait and see how other answers evolve when you think you have a good answer yourself. – moewe Aug 07 '20 at 19:44