<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Dear cataloging colleagues,</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><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></BODY></HTML>