All of those should be quoted:
The first instance of chick can be qouted and the rest can be regular
On 11/15/22 11:28 PM, Vince wrote:
> Really nice work, Bob. I logged a few minor things in GibHub, but it
> looks really good. Seventy chapters for a 70K book, when one of the
> chapters is 10K by itself; that makes for some quickly read chapters!
> Alex, a clarifying question about italics being used in places that
> don’t appear to be covered by the manual. As one example, the Goncourt’s
> italicize “chick” several times when referring to a friend, e.g. (I
> bolded just to make them easier to find)
> And this lasted ten years! ten years, during which Mademoiselle de
> Varandeuil had no other recreation, no other consolation than to
> pour out all the tenderness and warmth of a maternal affection upon
> one of her two young friends, recently married—her /*chick*/, as
> she called her.
> But she returned to her dear /*chick*/ first of all, and to another
> distant cousin, also married, who had become the
> /*chick’s*/ sister-in-law.
> And a couple of other instances.
> It’s conceivable to me that the first one could be styled emphasis, but
> the others seem doubtful to me.
> Then there are uses like this:
> Madame Jupillon, who claimed to have been married and signed herself
> /*Widow Jupillon*/, had a son. He was still a child. … Germinie fell
> into the way of accompanying Madame Jupillon when she went to see
> /*Bibi*/ on Thursdays.
> The /Widow Jupillon/ feels like it should be quoted, not italicized. If
> it is italicized, is it just unsemanticated italics? I’m not sure why
> the Bibi is italicized; it isn’t elsewhere, but that use doesn’t feel
> like emphasis, but maybe it is?
> In short, how free should we be (or not be) with things that are
> italicized in the source that aren’t covered by the manual and don’t
> have semantics? Should we lean towards leaving them italicized, and just
> use unsemanticated italics if they’re not emphasis, or should we only
> leave them italics if they are emphasis? And should we assume they are
> emphasis unless it’s “clear” they’re not?
> Yes, I know—it depends. :) I’m just trying to get a feel for how to
> determine what the “depends” depends on.
>> On Nov 15, 2022, at 4:54 AM, Bob Reus <bobr...@gmail.com
>> Alright, I think this is ready for review!
>> Here is the link to the git