This is to proceed with a discussion started on
While the CSL schema in its current form seems adequate for dealing with
non-dropping particles in European and Arabic names, I feel some aspects of
interpretation need to be reviewed:
In a nutshell, I argue that “van den”, “al-” and friends are genuine
non-dropping particles, but “La” and possibly a few others are not and are
best seen as parts of a single multipart last name (just like “Van” in
Belgian or American names, e.g., “Van Rompuy”).
The following is copied from
Certain names start with non-dropping particles, where “non-dropping” means
these particles have to appear in in-text citations (“van den Keere”,
“al-Hakim”) but may or may not be dropped in a bibliography for sorting
(“al-Hakim, Tawfiq” [sort under “H”], “van den Keere, Pieter” [sort under
“K”]), or sorting and display (“Hakim, Tawfiq al-”, “Keere, Pieter van
The Chicago Manual clearly recommends the sort-and-display variant (16e:
8.10, 8.14, 16.71, 16.76); that’s why I would argue that all CSL Chicago
styles should switch to
By contrast, any last name that does not function this way, i.e., where
elements are never removed from the front for purposes of sorting or
display, or in other words, where the last name is always used in one and
the same form only throughout a document, both in text and in a
bibliography, should be parsed as one multipart last name.
For example, I would argue that “La Fontaine” should be understood, contra
the examples given in
http://docs.citationstyles.org/en/stable/specification.html as one single
multipart last name, since “Fontaine” never seems to be used alone, neither
for sorting nor display (I’ve sometimes seen “Fontaine” used as a
crossreference pointing to “La Fontaine”, but that’s nothing currently
implemented in CSL anyway).
Parsing such “immutable” last names as multipart last names will most
likely take care of all “potential objections to demoting the particle when
demote-non-dropping-particle=“display-and-sort” is applied for European
name formatting” [fbennett] referred to earlier in this thread.
If this seems acceptable so far, it would also mean that some of
citeproc-js’s parsing rules need to be reviewed, e.g., the one on “La”.
Protecting such names by wrapping them in double quotation marks would
serve as a workaround, of course.
On the other hand, if a genuine need is felt to have more flexibility,
e.g., allowing different settings for demoting various individual groups of
non-dropping-particles (e.g., “al-” vs. “van den” vs. “La”) we’d have to
discuss an extension of the CSL schema – but currently I don’t really think