Alex, what are your thoughts on this one?
Two men are having a conversation; the above is “said” by one of the men. However, the first sentence is said to himself, the second is to the man. That is not clear at all from the translation. The original French has:
«Voilà, se dit-il, un homme qui me tend un piège...»
— Ainsi, monsieur, reprit-il, vous voudriez retirer cette somme, à ce que je comprends?
which Google translates to
Here, he said to himself, is a man laying a trap for me…
"So, sir," he continued, "you would like to withdraw this sum, as I understand it?"
The transcription made a half-hearted attempt to correct it by adding “to himself” after “said he," but that only succeeds in changing the object of the confusion since it still didn’t separate the two sentences.
“Here is a man,” said he to himself, “who is laying a snare for me. So you wish to withdraw this money, Monsieur,” replied he, “as I understand?”
To me, those two sentences need to be separated, as they are in the original French. The question is how.
I would normally make the first sentence a <q>, but it would be unique (so far, anyway) to this situation, because generally their thoughts are quoted. (This is the first time in all three books I’ve encountered a paragraph with an undifferentiated mixture of thoughts and spoken words.)
<q>Here</q>, he said to himself, <q>is a man laying a trap for me…</q> “So, sir,” he continued, “you would like to withdraw this sum, as I understand it?"
Or, I could make them separate paragraphs.
“Here is a man,” said he to himself, “who is laying a snare for me.”
“So you wish to withdraw this money, Monsieur,” replied he, “as I understand?”
Or I could keep them the same paragraph, but quote each sentence separately.
“Here is a man,” said he to himself, “who is laying a snare for me.” “So you wish to withdraw this money, Monsieur,” replied he, “as I understand?”
I think it should one of the three: leaving it as it’s transcribed is too confusing, IMO. What do you think?