<html>
<body>
Deborah,<br><br>
I think option 4 is clearly the best. The "rv" is meant
to represent a "w". It would not have been read
differently by any contemporary user of the text. To transcribe it
as "rv" produces a non-word, and I would not want to use as the
main title a transcription that does not make logical sense. This
is not a case of error but of intended representation.
One would furthermore have to explain to those who do not have the text
in hand that the printer used a <b>round</b> or <b>curved</b> r and v to
represent "w." Very few modern users of the catalog
could understand how "rv" looks like "w" without this
explanation. <br><br>
Transcribe it as "w," and add a note
indicating that a rounded r and v were used by the printer to represent
"w." I think it is similar to a signature alphabet where
"k" is represented by "lz". I would just
consider it a "k" and add a note to the effect that
"lz" was used by the printer for the letter
"k". I can't imagine anyone wanting to give a
signature note: a-i lz l-z. To me, the fact that "rv" was
used for "w" and "lz" was used for "k" is
an interesting historical curiosity, which is noteworthy, but I
would not want to use a mechanical transliteration of the letter forms in
this case where it results in a nonsensical word in a title.
<br><br>
I wouldn't myself add a 246 for a title that used
"rv" for "w" because I don't think that any
reasonable person would really think that the word is
"rveysse". But that is obviously a judgment
call. I would make a 246 for "vv" as a substitute for
"w". <br><br>
Joe Ross<br>
University of Notre Dame<br><br>
At 7:11 PM 1/8/2006, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">[Note: I embedded two images
from Appendix G in this message, which appear not to have come through.
Please see Appendix G for examples:
<a href="http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/DCRMBepsilon20050531rcleancopy.pdf" eudora="autourl">http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/DCRMBepsilon20050531rcleancopy.pdf</a>]<br><br>
<br><br>
The DCRM(B) editors send our wishes for a happy New Year, and crave this
group's collective wisdom. In Appendix G, the question has arisen about
the transcription of a curved r set next to a v when it is used to
approximate a w, as is done in some early German books [p. 155] ( ).
Currently, the cataloger is directed to transcribe as "rv [i.e.,
w]". The example in the appendix is "rveysse [i.e.
weysse]". One question in particular that has been raised is why an
rv used in place of a w gets different treatment from a vv. <br><br>
<br><br>
DCRM(B) employs four different methods for transcribing letters that are
in error or that deviate from a modern norm. <br>
<br>
1) Transcribe the modern equivalent. This
is what we do with archaic letter forms, such as the long s.<br><br>
2) Transcribe what is there, making no
correction or explanation. This is what we do with vv as well as archaic
spellings. <br><br>
3) Transcribe what is there and make a
correction, either through "i.e." or "sic." This is
what we do with typographical errors.<br><br>
4) Transcribe what is intended. This is
what we do with turned letters, whether deliberate or inadvertent (see
0G). Our transcription of the apostrophic forms of MD may reflect this
method; or it may reflect the first method of transcribing the modern
equivalent. (I don't know; perhaps we should figure out which is the
guiding principle, which may help resolve the rv question).<br><br>
<br><br>
The question is which of these categories fits the rv best: archaic
letterform, archaic but acceptable spelling, typographical error, or
turned letter.<br><br>
<br><br>
Option 1. The first option doesn't fit this case, since we are dealing
with two separate letters, one in an archaic form (curved r), but both of
which have a clear and unambiguous modern equivalent.<br><br>
<br><br>
Option 2. The second option is applying our treatment of vv in DCRM(B) to
rv. The grounds for treating vv as an archaic but acceptable form of w
can be found in their historical semio-etymological relationship.
According to the Shorter OED, the letter "W, the 23rd letter of the
modern English alphabet, is an addition to the ancient Roman alphabet,
having originated from a ligatured doubling of the Roman letter
represented by the U and V of modern alphabets. ..." This accounts
for our transcription of vv without correction or explanation. There is
no such historical relationship between rv and w. The rv cannot be
considered analogous to vv without seriously distorting the situation.
<br><br>
<br><br>
Option 3. rv was used to provide a graphic verisimilitude to a w, and
since I have mostly seen it in display fonts, was probably used for the
same reason that vv was used--when the compositor ran out of w in the
appropriate font. An analogy is if a printer, having run out of d's, sets
a c and an l side-by-side. There is no semio-etymological relationship
between c l and d, but it can look enough like a d if a person squints,
has normal cognitive capabilities, and a context in which to interpret.
(And is set in a gothic typeface, which has extremely narrow spaces
between letters). It would be appropriate in this case to transcribe what
is set and provide an explanation: "cleath [i.e. death]" or
"rvittenberg [i.e. Wittenberg]." <br><br>
<br><br>
Option 4. One can argue that since the rv is intended to represent a w,
its use is more like a turned letter or an apostrophus than it is an
anomaly needing correction as in option 3. Neither provides a strict
analogy: a turned letter is a single letter, and for most of them, there
is only one option for transcription. An upside-down r cannot be
transcribed as anything other than an r. Deliberately-turned letters,
such as a turned u for an n, does provide us with a choice: transcribe u
or n? Transcribe "London" or "Londou [i.e. London]"?
Since deliberately turned letters can only be identified as such by close
scrutiny of the typeface, and may in fact be impossible in some cases
(such as when an n and a u really are indistinguishable from each other),
I see no difficulty in transcribing a deliberately-turned as the intended
letter. <br><br>
<br><br>
How about an analogy between rv and the apostrophus [p. 151] ( )? As with
the relationship between vv and w, there is an historical relationship
between the apostrophic and modern forms of M (CI-backwards C) and D
(I-backwards C). This provides us with strong support in the decision to
transcribe apostrophic Roman numerals in their modern Roman equivalents.
Plus, we have no other option for transcribing the apostrophus. Since the
rv does provide other options than its intended letter of w for
transcription (i.e., rv), this analogy carries only moderate
weight. <br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
To my mind, options 3 and 4 are the only contenders, (although I would be
interested if anyone has a closely-reasoned argument in favor of options
1 or 2). If we say that an rv is more like a deviation from the modern
norm that needs correction, it should be transcribed as "rv [i.e.
w]". If we say that an rv is more like an apostrophus or a turned
letter, it should be transcribed as w. <br><br>
<br><br>
Your opinions, please.<br>
<br><br>
_____________________________<br><br>
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.<br><br>
Head of Cataloging<br><br>
Folger Shakespeare Library<br><br>
201 East Capitol St., S.E.<br><br>
Washington, DC 20003<br><br>
202.675-0369<br><br>
djleslie@folger.edu<br><br>
</blockquote></body>
<br>
</html>