<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1258">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578241015-06102006><FONT face=Arial
size=2>The example in AACR2 1.1F7 is an excellent example of grammatically
inseparable (though AACR2 calls it "necessary grammatically"): "proìlogo del
Excmo. Sr. D. Manuel Fraga Iribarne". The title is "Excmo. Sr." (and maybe "D."?
For the sake of argument let's say it is). "del" is not part of the title--at
least the preposition part and I would argue that the article part isn't either.
So if you left the title out you would wind up with "proìlogo del Manuel Fraga
Iribarne," which doesn't make sense. I.e. it is grammatically inseparable--can't
be separated from the phrase without making a grammatical
mess. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578241015-06102006><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=578241015-06102006><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578241015-06102006><FONT face=Arial size=2>I
agree "of the Royal Society" is not an example of "grammatically inseparable"
(or for that matter "necessary grammatically"). As Manon mentions, were
also thinking of places where case endings come into play, but that wasn't
all.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </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> Manon Theroux
[mailto:manon.theroux@yale.edu] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 05, 2006
9:07 PM<BR><B>To:</B> jxa16@psulias.psu.edu; Robert Maxwell; joeas@goshen.edu;
djleslie@folger.edu; manon.theroux@yale.edu; rbrandt@library.berkeley.edu;
auc1@psulias.psu.edu; skuce@mit.edu; jane.gillis@yale.edu;
juliet@ucrac1.ucr.edu; jfletchr@library.ucla.edu;
erob@loc.gov<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [DCRM-L] Title and Statement of
Responsibility Area<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><FONT size=3>I think David's point had more to do with
interpretation of the term "grammatically inseparable."<BR><BR>He is
interpreting "John Smith of the Royal Society" as grammatically inseparable.
It sounds like he thinks he may NOT transcribe it as "John Smith ..." because
it falls under the first exception listed in DCRM(B).<BR><BR>I don't think we
have been using "grammatically inseparable" in this way, have we? I would not
interpret "John Smith of the Royal Society" as grammatically inseparable and
would assume "John Smith ..." to be acceptable practice (though not something
I would do myself!). Haven't we been using "grammatically inseparable" to mean
more "serious" situations where words with case endings come into play, etc.,
or the phrase simply wouldn't make sense unless you included certain
words?<BR><BR>I think David is saying that DCRB's "necessary grammatically" is
more meaningful than DCRM(B)'s "grammatically inseparable." That "necessity"
is a stronger concept. <BR><BR>I guess specific examples here would help
explain what we mean, but I can't find any right
now.<BR><BR>-Manon<BR><BR><BR>At 09:54 PM 10/5/2006, Deborah J. Leslie
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">DCRB's default instruction was to
omit, using the mark of omission, all<BR>qualification, &c., except in
certain circumstances. DCRM(B) is neutral<BR>on the subject. Officially, it
neither encourages nor discourages,<BR>although in the examples we have
tried to be encouraging by including<BR>all data connected with a person's
name. Compare:<BR>DCRB (1G8): Generally omit from the statement of
responsibility such<BR>qualifications as initials indicating membership in
societies, academic<BR>degrees, statements of positions held unless: <BR>a)
the elements are necessary grammatically or b) the elements are<BR>necessary
for identifying the person or are useful in establishing a<BR>context for
the person's activity (initials of religious orders,<BR>phrases, or
adjectives denoting place names, etc.) or c) the statement<BR>of
responsibility represents the author only by a pseudonym, a<BR>descriptive
phrase, or nonalphabetic symbols.<BR>DCRM(B) (1E8)<BR>Qualifications such as
initials indicating membership in societies,<BR>academic degrees, and
statements of positions held may be omitted from<BR>the statement of
responsibility, using the mark of omission,
unless:<BR>a)<X-TAB> </X-TAB>the
qualifications are grammatically
inseparable<BR>or<X-TAB> </X-TAB>b)<X-TAB>
</X-TAB>the qualifications are necessary
for identifying the<BR>person or are useful in establishing a context for
the person's activity<BR>(initials of religious orders, phrases, or
adjectives denoting place<BR>names,
etc.<BR>or<X-TAB> </X-TAB>c)<X-TAB>
</X-TAB>the statement of responsibility
represents the author<BR>only by a pseudonym, a descriptive phrase, or
nonalphabetic symbols.<BR><BR>The point of all this is that there are
certain circumstances under<BR>which qualifications &c. may *not* be
omitted. They are the same<BR>conditions given in DCRB. Best practice will
dictate that "John Smith of<BR>the Royal Society" be transcribed in full
(and as a cataloger and a<BR>teacher of catalogers, I've always encouraged
liberal use of exception<BR>b), but it is permissible for a cataloger to
transcribe "John Smith ..."<BR>DCRB's "grammatical necessity" is less clear
than "grammatically<BR>inseparable," especially since DCRB would mandate the
latter<BR>transcription, and we know with certainty that DCRB was not trying
to<BR>get at something different (the revision of BDRB into DCRB is
within<BR>living memory)<BR>General comment: There are a number of permitted
practices in DCRM(B)<BR>that would not be recommended as best practice for
those attempting deep<BR>cataloging of rare materials. It is largely
impossible to tell which<BR>from which in DCRM(B) itself. After all this is
finished, I plan on<BR>writing a DCRM(B) companion or manual for
application, which will make<BR>that distinction. (There, I've said it. Now
I have to do it.)<BR>__________________________________________<BR>Deborah
J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.<BR>Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards
Committee<BR><A href="http://www.folger.edu/bsc/index.html"
eudora="autourl">http://www.folger.edu/bsc/index.html</A><BR>Head of
Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library<BR>201 East Capitol St., S.E.,
Washington, D.C. 20003<BR>djleslie@folger.edu || 202.675-0369 || <A
href="http://www.folger.edu "
eudora="autourl">http://www.folger.edu </A><BR><BR>-----Original
Message-----<BR>From: dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu [<A
href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" eudora="autourl">
mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</A>] On<BR>Behalf Of David
Woodruff<BR>Sent: 18 September 2006 14:58<BR>To:
dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu<BR>Subject: [DCRM-L] Title and Statement of
Responsibility Area<BR><BR>1E8 a). First sentence reads: Qualifications such
as initials indicating<BR>membership in societies, academic degrees, and
statements of positions<BR>held may be omitted from the statement of
responsibility, using the mark<BR>of omission, unless:<BR>a) the
qualifications are grammatically inseparable<BR>Why should it matter if
qualifications are grammatically separable or<BR>not? In "John Smith of the
Royal Society," "of the Royal Society" is<BR>inseparable, but it can easily
be dropped, leaving "John Smith." DCRB<BR>has "unless a) the elements are
necessary grammatically..." which may be<BR>getting at something slightly
different. Perhaps cases were the author's<BR>name is connected
syntactically to the rest of the sentence through the<BR>words for the
position held.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>