<html>
<body>
My dissatisfaction with the current DCRM(B) instruction springs from the
realization that if I'm cataloging, say, a 20th-century French book with
a title that has the "oe" together, AACR2/LCRIs would allow me
to transcribe as found (as would DCRB), but DCRM(B) would not. <br><br>
I expect rules for rare materials cataloging to allow more faithful
transcription than AACR2/LCRIs. Thus, I would prefer that we either
<br><br>
1) stick to the current DCRB instructions for transcribing "oe"
and "ae" or <br>
2) simply transcribe them as found<br><br>
-Manon<br><br>
<br>
At 2/22/2005 09:32 AM, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Dear cataloging colleagues,<br>
<br>
This weekend four of the five DCRM(B) editors are meeting at the Folger
for intense editing sessions. Im happy to report that so far were 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 ligaturesas the rules call them. Please keep in
mind that we are not speaking of decorative ligatures, such as cts and
sts as a single type-body. We are only speaking of two letters written as
one. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
The current draft of DCRM(B) has 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.
<br><br>
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). <br><br>
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
content. What do you think? <br>
_________________________________<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>
<a href="http://www.folger.edu/" eudora="autourl">http://www.folger.edu</a><br><br>
<br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>