<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1491" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=636181016-22022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2>I'd like to hear the reasoning for why digraphs are "content" rather than
"form." </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=636181016-22022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=636181016-22022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2>The only argument I can think of is that they might actually be
considered separate letters, i.e., "oe" is not considered two letters stuck
together, but a single letter. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=636181016-22022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=636181016-22022005><FONT face=Arial size=2>I
can speak with some authority that this is *not* the case in Latin. "oe" and
"ae" are diphthongs, i.e., two separate vowel letters pronounced in
one syllable, and if the two letters are stuck together they are simply
ligatures, no different from ct and st (which can also be two letters pronounced
in a single syllable). "oe" and "ae" are not considered separate letters in
Latin. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=636181016-22022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=636181016-22022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Nor are they, as far as I can tell, in French. At least in my dictionary,
"oecumenique" is filed directly after "odyssee" and "oeuvrer" just before "off",
i.e., at least so far as filing is concerned, they are considered ligatures, not
a separate letter. I would think if they were considered a separate letter they
would be filed somewhere else, perhaps after all the other Os. It is true that
"oe" in this dictionary is printed as an oe ligature. But I would consider that
form, not content. I cannot speak for Scandinavian languages.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=636181016-22022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=636181016-22022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Furthermore, as far as I know all systems file the MARC ae and oe as
though they were separate letters. This of course could be changed but it would
result in an extreme amount of confusion I should think for our users, so I have
my doubts that the custom of filing them as though separate letters will ever
change.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=636181016-22022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=636181016-22022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Until hearing further argument I think they are ligatures, i.e., form,
rather than content, at least in most cases.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=636181016-22022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=636181016-22022005><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Bob</FONT></SPAN></DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2>Robert L. Maxwell<BR>Special Collections and Ancient Languages
Catalog Librarian<BR>Genre/Form Authorities Librarian<BR>6728 Harold B. Lee
Library<BR>Brigham Young University<BR>Provo, UT 84602<BR>(801)422-5568
</FONT></P>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><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 7:33 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> [DCRM-L] Reconsidering
digraphs<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></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>