<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1258">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=294492516-22022005>The instructions regarding ligatures are in
LCRI 1.0E, 1st paragraph: "</SPAN>Separate ligatures that are occasional
stylistic usages (<SPAN
style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"></SPAN><SPAN
style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-DECORATION: none">Œ</SPAN><SPAN
style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-DECORATION: none"></SPAN>dipus,
alumnæ, etc.) rather than standard usages in the modern orthography of the
language, e.g.,<SPAN
style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">œ</SPAN>
in French (as in <SPAN
style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-STYLE: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">œ</SPAN>uvre)
or æ in Danish (as in særtryk). If there is any doubt as to the correct
conversion of elements to modern forms, transcribe them from the source as
exactly as possible.<SPAN class=294492516-22022005>" I believe that ligatures
are separately alphabetized, i.e. treated as distinct characters, in
some languages--Danish among them, I seem to recall. Note the "in case of doubt"
clause, which tells you to treat the ligatures as "content", in the terms you've
adopted.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2><!--StartFragment --><BR><FONT
size=3>RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN
UNIVERSITY<BR>PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 :
RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
dcrm-l-admin@lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-admin@lib.byu.edu] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>Deborah J. Leslie<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 22, 2005 9:33
AM<BR><B>To:</B> dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> [DCRM-L] Reconsidering
digraphs<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Dear cataloging colleagues,</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">This weekend four of the five
DCRM(B) editors are meeting at the Folger for intense editing sessions. I’m
happy to report that so far we’re making good progress, but find there is an
issue we want to re-open, and request guidance from the larger community. It
has to do with the separation of ae and oe digraphs, or “ligatures” as the
rules call them. Please keep in mind that we are not speaking of decorative
ligatures, such as ct’s and st’s as a single type-body. We are only speaking
of two letters written as one. </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">As far as we can discover,
AACR2 gives no guidance on digraphs. (One of us thought she had found an AACR2
instruction to separate all ligatures, but now cannot find it and wonders if
she imagined it.) LCRI 1.0E says to separate ligatures into their component
letters, but makes exceptions for modern French and Scandinavian, in which oe
and ae are to be transcribed as a single character. DCRB adds Anglo-Saxon and
ancient Scandinavian languages to the exception list. </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
class=995172914-22022005>The current draft </SPAN>of DCRM(B) <SPAN
class=995172914-22022005>has </SPAN>simplified the instruction: separate all
ligatures into their component letters, no exceptions. But we feel we need to
reconsider that instruction given our desire to make the transcription more
precise in terms of content. AE and oe digraphs have always been part of the
MARC character set. We realize we are having a hard time justifying the
separation of digraphs in transcription. </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">An instruction to transcribe
all digraphs as digraphs, in any language at all, goes against the grain of
experience for many of us. The ESTC, on the other hand, has been transcribing
digraphs as such all along. We need to winnow out the aesthetic arguments and
focus on what we are trying to accomplish with transcription. (All other
things being equal, aesthetic arguments count, but only if all other things
really are equal). </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><o:p> </o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">At its most basic level, the
DCRM transcription principle is to transcribe the content, but not the form,
of printed text. Thus, we retain archaic and incorrect spellings, but
normalize capitalization and line endings -- the former being content, the
latter form. The digraph question comes down to this: do digraphs represent
content (does their joining together actually create a new letter) or do they
represent form (just a conventional way of writing these combinations of
letters)? We as a group are leaning more toward the consideration of digraphs
as<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>content. What do you think?
</P></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=Section1>
<P class=MsoNormal align=left><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Palatino Linotype'">_________________________________<BR>Deborah
J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.<BR>Head of Cataloging<BR>Folger Shakespeare
Library<BR><A
href="mailto:djleslie@folger.edu">djleslie@folger.edu</A><BR>http://www.folger.edu<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>