reprints with additional remarks and biblatex-sbl with

In some reprints, there were added sections of forewords, introductions, etc. In German Bibliographies, these additions have to be mentioned. As far as I see, the biblatex-sbl style has not a feature to mention it, or?

For instance, there is this book

Name, Surname: History: Contribution. London, 1908. Ndr., Lens: Avant, 1977.

and in this book, an introduction has been added by Prof. XYZ. In this case, it is usually to give this annotation (in notes and in the bibliography):

Name, Surname: History: Contribution. London, 1908. Ndr. with an introduction by Prof. XYZ, Lens: Avant, 1977.

Has someone an idea how I can have such a result? I have asked this question in another forum, but since a week, I have not received any answer.

My second question: The abbreviation "Ndr." for the reprint (in German: Neudruck) is very untypical. It is possible to replace this abbreviation "Ndr." with the common "ND"?

Here is my MWE:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{filecontents}
\begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib}
@book{Name.1908,
author = {Name, Surname},
title = {History},
subtitle = {Contribution},
shorttitle = {History},
location = {Lens},
origlocation = {London},
publisher = {Avant},
origdate = {1908},
date = {1977},
}

\end{filecontents}
\usepackage{polyglossia}
\setmainlanguage[variant=new]{german}

\usepackage[autostyle=true,german=quotes]{csquotes}
\usepackage[style=sbl, backend=biber,
sblfootnotes=false, ibidpage=true,
sorting=nyvt,
url=false, isbn=false, doi=false,
clearlang=false,
uniquename=false]{biblatex}
\begin{document}
\null\vfill
Filler text \autocite{Name.1908}.
Filler text \autocite{Name.1908}.
\printbiblist{abbreviations}
\printbibliography
\end{document}


Given your comments below, that reprints are uniquely different to anything else that biblatex-sbl produces, I'd do things in a completely different way.

You will see that note output is identical to bibliography output when relatedtype={reprint}. But for all other entry types, the standard biblatex-sbl behaviour should be preserved.

MWE

See comments for what is going on.

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{filecontents}
\begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib}
% use note for original publication information so it isn't put in parentheses
@book{Familyname.1977,
author = {Familyname, Givenname},
title = {History},
subtitle = {Contribution},
shorttitle = {History},
note = {London, 1908},
related = {Familyname.1977.repr},
relatedtype = {reprint},
}
@book{Familyname.1977.repr,
note = {with an introduction by Prof\adddot\space XYZ},
location = {Lens},
publisher = {Avant},
date = {1977}
}
\end{filecontents}
\usepackage[ngerman]{babel}
\usepackage[autostyle=true,german=quotes]{csquotes}
\usepackage[style=sbl, language=ngerman, sblfootnotes=false,
ibidtracker=constrict, ibidpage=true, sorting=nyvt, url=false, isbn=false,
doi=false, clearlang=false, uniquename=false]{biblatex}

% Change reprint abbreviation to ND
\DefineBibliographyStrings{ngerman}{%
reprint = {ND}
}

% Put reprint information in parentheses and change beginning punctuation to a
% space
\DeclareFieldFormat{related:reprint}{\mkbibparens{#1}}

% Set \newunitpunct to comma and remove parentheses around publication info
\renewbibmacro*{related:reprint}[1]{%
\entrydata*{#1}{%
\usedriver
{\renewbibmacro*{related:init}{}%
\renewbibmacro*{parens+publisher+location+date}{%
\newunit
\usebibmacro{publisher+location+date}}}
{\ifbibliography
{\thefield{entrytype}}
{cite:\thefield{entrytype}}}}}

% use family, given and change \newunitpunct to a point just for related
% inconsistent.)
\usepackage{xpatch}
\xpretobibmacro{cite}
{\iffieldequalstr{relatedtype}{reprint}
{\DeclareNameAlias{default}{family-given}%
{}}
{}
{}

\begin{document}
\null\vfill
Filler text \autocite{Familyname.1977}.
Filler text \autocite{Familyname.1977}.
\printbibliography
\end{document}


Here's a partial solution, but there is a bug in biblatex.

Your request to have with and introduction by in English may almost warrant a separate question, as I'm not sure if setting the langid of the reprint information is the best way of doing this.

I think the best way to set up your bib entries is like this:

@book{Familyname.1977,
author = {Familyname, Givenname},
title = {History},
subtitle = {Contribution},
shorttitle = {History},
location = {London},
date = {1908},
related = {Familyname.1977.repr},
relatedtype = {reprint}
}
@book{Familyname.1977.repr,
location = {Lens},
publisher = {Avant},
date = {1977},
langid = {american}
}


The theory of including the langid field is to ensure that strings in the reprint are printed in English, but strings in the main entry are printed in your main document language of German. This also requires the addition of autolang=other, language=auto to the main biblatex options (and adding american to your babel options). The problem is that this breaks strings everywhere with biblatex-sbl and they are all printed in English. I'll try and find the bug and fix it. In the mean time, I've provided a second MWE using the note field (which might be a better option anyway) to achieve the output you want. (In your MWE, no difference is seen, but if your book used editor instead of author, you'd see that the ed. is printed rather than Hrsg.) See https://github.com/dcpurton/biblatex-sbl/issues/106. Turns out this is actually a bug in biblatex. See https://github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/903.

One other problem is that out of the box this won't print with and introduction by as there is a test to make sure the title field is defined. We can fix this by redefining the macro byauthor/byeditor+others/bytranslator+others as follows:

\renewbibmacro*{byauthor/byeditor+others/bytranslator+others}{%
\usebibmacro{byauthor}%
\newunit
\usebibmacro{ifbooktitleormaintitle}
{\usebibmacro{byeditor/bytranslator}}
{\usebibmacro{byeditor+others}%
\newunit
\usebibmacro{bytranslator+others}}}


I haven't tested to see if this redefinition breaks other things yet (but if it does, it would only be in fairly obscure cases that might not affect you). I'll look into this further.

You can redefine the reprint string using \DefineBibliographyStrings:

\DefineBibliographyStrings{ngerman}{%
reprint = {ND}
}


Finally, I recommend using babel and lualatex instead of polyglossia, which does not work well with biblatex.

So the full MWE becomes:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{filecontents}
\begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib}
@book{Familyname.1977,
author = {Familyname, Givenname},
title = {History},
subtitle = {Contribution},
shorttitle = {History},
location = {London},
date = {1908},
related = {Familyname.1977.repr},
relatedtype = {reprint},
langid = {ngerman}
}
@book{Familyname.1977.repr,
location = {Lens},
publisher = {Avant},
date = {1977},
langid = {american}
}
\end{filecontents}
\usepackage[american,ngerman]{babel}
\usepackage[autostyle=true,german=quotes]{csquotes}
\usepackage[style=sbl, autolang=other, language=auto, sblfootnotes=false,
ibidpage=true, sorting=nyvt, url=false, isbn=false, doi=false,
clearlang=false, uniquename=false]{biblatex}

\DefineBibliographyStrings{ngerman}{%
reprint = {ND}
}

\newbibmacro*{byauthor/byeditor+others/bytranslator+others}{%
\usebibmacro{byauthor}%
\newunit
\usebibmacro{ifbooktitleormaintitle}
{\usebibmacro{byeditor/bytranslator}}
{\usebibmacro{byeditor+others}%
\newunit
\usebibmacro{bytranslator+others}}}

\begin{document}
\null\vfill
Filler text \autocite{Familyname.1977}.
Filler text \autocite{Familyname.1977}.
\printbibliography
\end{document}


Workaround using the note field:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{filecontents}
\begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib}
@book{Familyname.1977,
author = {Familyname, Givenname},
title = {History},
subtitle = {Contribution},
shorttitle = {History},
location = {London},
date = {1908},
related = {Familyname.1977.repr},
relatedtype = {reprint},
}
@book{Familyname.1977.repr,
location = {Lens},
publisher = {Avant},
date = {1977}
}
\end{filecontents}
\usepackage[ngerman]{babel}
\usepackage[autostyle=true,german=quotes]{csquotes}
\usepackage[style=sbl, sblfootnotes=false, ibidpage=true, sorting=nyvt,
url=false, isbn=false, doi=false, clearlang=false,
uniquename=false]{biblatex}

\DefineBibliographyStrings{ngerman}{%
reprint = {ND}
}

\renewbibmacro*{byauthor/byeditor+others/bytranslator+others}{%
\usebibmacro{byauthor}%
\newunit
\usebibmacro{ifbooktitleormaintitle}
{\usebibmacro{byeditor/bytranslator}}
{\usebibmacro{byeditor+others}%
\newunit
\usebibmacro{bytranslator+others}}}

\begin{document}
\null\vfill
Filler text \autocite{Familyname.1977}.
Filler text \autocite{Familyname.1977}.
\printbibliography
\end{document}

• ... This distinction is not present any more for most people, but I don't know if some fields stick to this tradition. I should say that I find Nachdr. the most intuitive abbreviation of Nachdruck and that ND with two capital letters looks very unusual to my eyes. – moewe Jul 6 at 7:52
• Thanks! moewe is correct by saying that both terms are interchangeable today. For Biblical Studies, I have never seen this abbreviation "Ndr."; "ND" is common. I see two problems with the "introduction" field: 1) This "with an introduction by Prof. XYZ" will be translated into German - that is quite wrong, since this new part of the reprint belongs to the title and titles still remained untranslated. 2) The position is misleading. This "with an introduction by Prof. XYZ" should be set immediately after "ND" so that the reader knows that this part can be found only in the reprint. – user192316 Jul 6 at 10:18
• @user192316, yes, I'm looking into it. It should be possible to do things nicely I think. The simple origdate, origlocation, and origpublisher, is really only suitable when it's a recent reprint with no changes to the book but under a different publisher (See §6.2.17) of the SBL Handbook of Style. – David Purton Jul 6 at 10:31
• Well, if the with an introduction by ... bit is supposed to be an immutable part of the title, introduction and bibstrings are not all that useful. I would just go with titleaddon or note. If you ask me, I quite like the flexibility introduction gives me, but if this is not desired there is no point in sticking with it. – moewe Jul 6 at 11:49
• @user192316, this is far from SBL style. The problem with biblatex-sbl is that it is designed to conform to the SBL Handbook of Style as closely as I can make it. And it is not always easy to customise. Now I'm all confused what you want for normal references without reprints. Do they look like what you get from biblatex-sbl by default? – David Purton Jul 6 at 13:49