有时候，我会写很长的脚注，这些脚注会分散在连续的页面上。有没有办法自动插入[下页继续]和[接上页]什么时候会发生这种分裂？
同样的问题已经被问过一段时间了但人们拒绝提供答案，理由是原贴作者没有提供 MWE。所以我的答案是：一个短段落，一个长脚注。
\noindent Both \citet{nykiel-sag11} and \citet{barros14} take this kind of data as
evidence for generalization (\ref{ex:case-matching-20}) below. We will see in section
\ref{sec:cleft-sluic} below that this morphological case identity requirement also blocks
a cleft source for certain sluices. As a consequence, while this requirement is compatible
with the presence of a regular syntax in the sluicing site, it doesn't provide direct
evidence in its favor (contrary to \citeauthor{ross69}'s and \citeauthor{merchant99}'s
claims).\footnote{\citeauthor{barros14} treats (\ref{ex:case-matching-20}) as a
descriptive generalization in need of a more principled explanation.
\citeauthor{nykiel-sag11} make the stronger claim that (\ref{ex:case-matching-20})
constitutes an argument against the presence of an articulate syntax in the sluicing site.
Specifically, they claim that, if (\ref{ex:case-matching-20}) is viewed as an overarching
form requirement on sluicing remnants, it becomes superfluous (and therefore unnecessary)
to postulate a silent syntax to derive the observed case of the remnant. This line of
attack is arguably too strong, in that it fails to cover a number of environments where
case identity doesn't hold. Section \ref{sec:copul-sluic-island} below illustrates this
effect in the context of LBE sluices in languages with adjectival inflection. Similarly,
\citet{ince12} points out that, while the subjects of Turkish embedded clauses are
invariably genitive, remnants of sluicing in the same position are assigned nominative.
\begin{exe}
\exi{(i)}{\gll Ahmet [\{ $*$ biri-$\varnothing$ / $\checkmark$ biri-nin \} Ankara-ya {git-ti\v g-i}]-ni s\"oyle-di, ama [\{ $\checkmark$ kim-$\varnothing$ / $*$ kim-nin \} \gap] bil-mi-yor-um.\\
Ahmet {} {} one-{\sc nom} {} {} one-{\sc gen} {} Ankara-{\sc dat} go-{\sc comp -poss.3sg-acc} tell-{\sc pst.3sg} but {} {} who-{\sc nom} {} {} who-{\sc gen} {} {} know-{\sc neg-pres-1sg}\\
``Ahmet said that someone went to Ankara, but I don't know who''}
\end{exe}
\noindent Japanese is sometimes reported to exhibit case mismatches too. For example,
\citet{kizu97} and \citet{merchant98} claim that remnants cannot be case marked (ii),
although other authors (e.g., \citealt{fukaya12,nakamura12}) provide comparable examples
where the presence of the case marker is not claimed to induce ungrammaticality
(this seems to be a point of idiolectal variation; see \citealt{inoue76} and
\citealt{iseda07}). Similarly, \citet{gribanova13} provides Uzbek examples where a
case-marked correlate licenses a bare remnant (iii).
\begin{exe}
\exi{(ii)}{\gll Dareka-ga sono hon-o yon-da ga, watashi-wa [dare($*$-ga) {\gap} ka] wakaranai.\\
someone-{\sc nom} this book-{\sc acc} read-{\sc pst} but I-{\sc top} {{ }who-{\sc nom}} {} Q know.not\\
``Someone read this book, but I don't know who''}
\end{exe}
\begin{exe}
\exi{(iii)}{\gll Siz kim-ga-dir pul ber-di-ngiz, lekin [kim(-ga) {\gap} lig-i-ni ] bil-ma-y-man.\\
you some-{\sc dat}-one money give-{\sc pst-2sg} but {{ }who-{\sc dat}} {} {\sc comp-3sg.poss-acc} {} know-{\sc neg-prs-1sg}\\
``You gave money to someone, but I don't know who''}
\end{exe}
\noindent Note that, in all of these classes of examples, the remnant is not overtly
case marked (depending on one's base assumptions, one could say either that it bears a
phonetically null case marker or that it is not case marked at all). As far as I know,
there are no exceptions to (\ref{ex:case-matching-20}) where the remnant bears a
different overt case marker from the one the correlate does, or where the remnant is
overtly case-marked and the correlate is bare. At present, I do not know if this is
a relevant fact or an artifact of the sample I am working with.}
\begin{exe}
\ex\label{ex:case-matching-20}\emph{Case matching under sluicing}\\*
In sluicing, given a correlate $C$ and a remnant $R$, if $C$ is a case-bearing category,
$R$ and $C$ must have the same case morphology.
\end{exe}
编译后的 .pdf 截图显示脚注分布在第 12 页和第 13 页，但没有[继续]...[继续]标记
答案1
这实际上是一条评论，但是太长了，所以......
“它将如何帮助你的读者......”例如，当使用两种或更多种类型的脚注时（标题中的内容如下）：
\usepackage{alphalph}
\usepackage{bigfoot}
\DeclareNewFootnote[para]{default} % footnote author1
\DeclareNewFootnote[para]{P}[alph] % footnotes author2 in main section
%\DeclareNewFootnote[para]{K}[arabic] % footnotes author3 in one section
\DeclareNewFootnote[para]{L}[roman] % footnotes author2 in appendix only
\renewcommand*{\thefootnoteP}{%
\alphalph{\value{footnoteP}}}
%\usepackage{perpage}
% \MakePerPage{footnoteP}
\usepackage[multiple]{footmisc}
如果有一个较长的“默认” fn 加上三到四个 P 类型的 fn，则第一个 fn 通常将流到第 2 页，明显中断而没有迹象表明它会继续。
（如上所述，这只是一个可能有用的应用程序。）如果我没记错的话，OpenOffice 中有一个函数可以让人定义一个“继续”字符。（但这当然是题外话。）