4

I generally use APA style. But, the style might not be relevant here (I don't know).

I have seen people citing like this: Chomsky1957[2002] where the [2002] part refers to the 2nd edition of the book while the 1957 part is the first edition.

@Book{Chomsky2002S,
author = {Chomsky, Noam}, 
title = {Syntactic structures}, 
publisher = {Mouton de Gruyter}, 
address = {Berlin; New York}, 
year = {2002}, 
edition = {2},

This is obviously the entry for the second edition of the book. For historical reasons, I also need to mention (indicate) in the text that this is the same book to the 1957 classic.

1) Am I supposed to have both editions as separate entries in my bibtex library, or any better way of linking?
2) Am I supposed to insert each as separate references in the Reference section?

  • Since you are trying to follow APA guidelines, a natural follow-up quesstion is: What, if anything, do these guidelines say? Put differently, you should be consulting the 6th (or, since a short while ago, 7th) edition of the guidelines, and not rely on opinions of random people on the Internet. If the guidelines have anything to say regarding the points you raise, you should follow these guidelines punctiliously. Conversely, if they're silent, just do whatever feels appropriate. – Mico Mar 27 '17 at 14:57
  • 2
    According to the APA blog, you have Chomsky, 1957/2002 in the text, and the 2002 work in the bibliography with the note Original work published 1957 in the bibliography. This is what biblatex-apa gives me if I set origdate=1957. But (1) as Mico points out it's not a TeX question and (2) a second edition is not a reprint if the text is revised, of course. – Paul Stanley Mar 27 '17 at 15:14
  • I think this as bibtex question because I don't know if it has a field, say, for origdate that you are putting the original date in. But, thank you for the explanation. This is very helpful. – Dellu Mar 30 '17 at 9:59
2

Biblatex with Biber should do the trick with that type of file including some sort of crossref:

@book{texttocite,
title={Title},
author={Author},
year={Year},
publisher={Publisher},
related={originaltext},
relatedstring={See :},
}

@book{originaltext,
title={Title},
author={Author},
booktitle={Booktitle},
publisher={Publisher},
year={Year}
}

With that you can cite 'texttocite' and it will cite both in you bibliography in the form "Citation" See : "Original text".

That works fine to cite translations as well.

Thus if you use the apa style it will be compliant, and if you want to switch styles it will still work fine.

  • 1
    This is the type of trick I have been looking for.But, the "related" field is not part of the list of fields in the Bibtex; and, I really don't get any effect when I add that field. I use crossref, but for "incollection" field to get the extra fields from the collection work. Can you elaborate how to use this field? – Dellu Mar 30 '17 at 10:15
  • 1
    You have to use Biblatex (ctan.org/pkg/biblatex) instead of Bibtex. It's a more powerful solution for biblios and you don't have to worry about complexity, once it's set up it runs as smooth as Bibtex. CrossRef is a hardcoded cross-referencing item form bibtex, it has a unique meaning which is complicated to edit. With the "related" field, you can do whatever you want to do. I started to use it to cite some american texts translated into french into a collected edition, something like Author (1955) Original, infos Trad dans. Text In : Book, editor, (1979). – Rémi Nazin Mar 31 '17 at 6:13
  • The general idea is that the 'related' field is a macro that merges two bib entries accordingly to your citation style. The 'relatedstring' is just a customizable token that goes inbetween so everything is possible :) – Rémi Nazin Mar 31 '17 at 6:16
  • I don't use Biblatex because it is slower. I am now using the "note" filed to mention the original. – Dellu Apr 7 '17 at 9:39
  • It's a way to do that, I think you still can manually define a \relatedcite{} command which would create a customized citation in order to nest them juste like the related field of biblatex but it's more of a customization that a general solution. – Rémi Nazin Apr 8 '17 at 19:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.