<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RE: [DCRM-L] Reconsidering digraphs</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1498" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=515263115-26042005><FONT face=Arial size=2>I
think we need to clarify something here. The rule in question says nothing about
transcription of ligatures in English or Latin. These have always been
transcribed separately, both under DCRB and AACR2. So the presence in English of
words containing digraphs, whether the correct spelling or not, is not the
issue. The narrow issue is the treatment of ae ligature in Anglo-Saxon, of oe
ligature in French, and ae or oe ligature in ancient and modern Scandinavian
languages. We have not and do not transcribe these as ligatures in Latin or
English or any other language, nor are we proposing to introduce this into DCRM.
The only question is, is it logical to retain the narrow exceptions for
Anglo-Saxon, French, and Scandinavian languages. Expansion to other ligatures in
other languages has <EM>not </EM>been proposed.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </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> Monday, April 25, 2005 8:24 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [DCRM-L] Reconsidering
digraphs<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Which English words? </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT size=2>-----Original Message----- <BR><B>From:</B>
dcrm-l-admin@lib.byu.edu on behalf of Juliet McLaren
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Mon 2005-04-25 18:33 <BR><B>To:</B> dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu
<BR><B>Cc:</B> <BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [DCRM-L] Reconsidering
digraphs<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><BR><BR>
<P><FONT size=2>I second Jane's comments, with the added note that these are
not<BR>necessarily obsolete, nor related just to typographic conventions of
an<BR>earlier era. The 'oe' and 'ae' digraphs are still correct
spelling in a<BR>number of English words.<BR><BR>Juliet<BR><BR>At 01:48 PM
4/25/2005, Jane Gillis wrote:<BR>>Regarding digraphs, there are several
issues. If we follow the manuscript<BR>>tradition, as Larry has
pointed out, the "ae" and "oe" ligatures in Latin<BR>>would not be
transcribed as digraphs but as 2 letters, but the ae ligature<BR>>in
Ango-Saxon would be transcribed as a digraph.<BR>><BR>>The question is
whether or not we are following the manuscript tradition<BR>>for early
printed works. In DCRB, 0A, Scope and purpose, the
last<BR>>sentence of the first paragraph reads:<BR>><BR>>"They may
be used in describing any book, however, particularly those<BR>>produced
by hand or by methods continuing the tradition of the<BR>>hand-produced
book. "<BR>><BR>>The corresponding part in DCRM(B), 0A, Scope and
Purpose, reads:<BR>><BR>>"They are especially appropriate for such
publications produced before the<BR>>introduction of machine printing in
the nineteenth century. However, they<BR>>may be used in describing any
printed book, including machine-press<BR>>publications, artists' books,
private press books, and other materials<BR>>produced in the modern era.
"<BR>><BR>>What is no longer mentioned is "continuing the tradition of
the<BR>>hand-produced book." Is this
deliberate?<BR>><BR>>Manon gave the example of a 20th century French
book with an "oe"<BR>>ligature, which we could transcribe as written but
we would not be allowed<BR>>to transcribe an "ae" ligature in an
incunable as written. The<BR>>implication is that AACR2r allows for
more "transcription" than DCRM(B) does.<BR>><BR>>Let's take another,
more illustrative, example. For one title, we have a<BR>>15th
Latin manuscript and a 15th Latin printed book. They are
identical<BR>>as far as words, letters and letter forms. According
to AMREMM, the "ae"<BR>>ligature in the manuscript would be transcribed
as two letters. Cataloged<BR>>according to DCRB or AACR2r, the "ae"
in the printed item would be<BR>>transcribed as a digraph. DCRM(B)
follows AMREMM and would transcribe the<BR>>"ae" ligature as 2
letters.<BR>><BR>>If we do follow the manuscript tradition, as laid
out in AMREMM, it might<BR>>be good to follow it more closely. Here
is what it says:<BR>><BR>>AMREMM 0F2.1<BR>><BR>>"In general,
transcribe pre-modern letter forms using their modern<BR>>equivalents,
but maintain language-specific characters, such as<BR>>Anglo-Saxon ... .
Transcribe ligatures by giving their component parts as<BR>>separate
letters. The ligature e-caudata [... should similarly
be<BR>>rendered by separating its component parts into a and e. Do
not, however,<BR>>separate the component letters of the ligatured
digraphs ae in<BR>>Anglo-Saxon, oe in French, or ae and oe in
Scandinavian languages."<BR>><BR>>For Manon's example of an oe
ligature in a French book, if DCRM(B) did<BR>>follow AMREMM, the oe
would be transcribed as a digraph.<BR>><BR>>It seems to me that there
are reasons why these letters and ligatures are<BR>>either transcribed or
broken into component parts by manuscript catalogers<BR>>and consequently
by AMREMM. These same reasons would apply to early<BR>>printed
books.<BR>><BR>>Jane<BR>><BR>><BR>>Jane Gillis | Rare Book
Cataloger| Sterling Memorial Library<BR>>Yale University | New
Haven CT 06520<BR>>(203)432-2633 (voice) | (203)432-4047 (fax) |
jane.gillis@yale.edu<BR><BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>