[DCRM-L] nonroman signatures: revised instructions

[Joseph Ross]

This revision is a great improvement over the earlier instructions.  I like 
the fact that emphasis is being placed on using the original scripts where 
that is  possible, and I like the fact that transliteration is being used 
to represent the alphabet rather than resorting to a numeric designation 
that loses the distinction between numeric and alphabetic sequences.

Having researched this further since my earlier comments on Cyrillic 
signatures, I think we just need to make a few more revisions.  Barry 
Hinman has already indicated one issue that needs to be addressed:  the 
number of letters in the alphabet and which alphabet is being used.


I have not seen any signatures in the modern Russian alphabet, but 
signatures in the pre-1917 period  typically  use the Church Slavonic 
alphabet which is usually considered to have  40 letters.  There are some 
ambiguities about the number of letters in the alphabet as well as the 
position of letters in the alphabet.   One bibliography that I have been 
able to consult handles this problem by giving the letters (in original 
script) and then indicating that the last letter =40 or whatever; and then 
where the subsequent alphabets are only partially utilized, the position 
value of the last letter is also given.

Cf.  A. Gorfunkel, Katalog knig kirillovsoi pechati 16-17 vekov. Leningrad, 
1970:  entry 73: Apostol. Kiev. ...  Sobolia, nakladom Bogdana Stetkevicha. 
1630.
   2(s 0=superscript 0) : A - V(with diaeresis) (s 4) (V with 
diaeresis=39),  aa-rr (s 4)  (rr=18)  ss (s 2).

I think this is an elegant solution to the problem of an alphabet that has 
such variability in the number and position of the letters, and I would 
prefer this to Barry's suggestion of just indicating the number of letters 
in the alphabet.

The example given in the epsilon draft for Cyrillic signatures is not a 
very fortunate one.

Signatures: pi (s 2) A-Ë (s 6) [Zh] (s 6)   Z (s6); signed in Cyrillic script

The letter Ë was only officially introduced into the Russian alphabet in 
1956.  It was first introduced in 1797 but did not receive official 
acceptance even  with the revision of the alphabet in 1917.  Even today it 
has a somewhat ambiguous status.  It is not always given in an alphabetic 
sequence because no words begin with the letter.  I don't know if it ever 
shows up in Cyrillic signatures, but I would prefer an example that does 
not use this in the signature pattern.  Since we are dealing with early 
imprints, an example using Church Slavic such as the signature example from 
Gorfunkel would be much better.

I can find other examples from Gorfunkel if they are needed.

Joe Ross
University of Notre Dame



At 02:17 PM 4/1/2005, Barry E. Hinman wrote:
>Aren't there cases where the number of letters will be ambiguous?
>Modern Russian alphabet, signed in Cyrillic, and Old Church Slavonic 
>alphabet, signed in Cyrillic, for example?  In such a case, wouldn't it be 
>necessary to add to the statement
>    signed in Cyrillic using an alphabet of xx letters
>or
>    signed in Cyrillic using Old Church Slavonic alphabet
>
>Richard Noble wrote:
>
>>An elegant solution, clearly and succinctly expressed--those are my first 
>>and second impressions.
>>
>>Minor "however": In my own work I'm not sure that I'd use the word 
>>"script" in the note. I suppose it's clear, but outside Library Land, 
>>whose denizens are familiar with AACR usage, it's a slightly fuzzy word.* 
>>I might prefer something like "signed in Greek alphabet"--not as fluent, 
>>but unambiguous. I presume the rule is not prescriptive with respect to 
>>that wording, as long as the facts are clearly explained.
>>
>>*E.g. the OED definitions of "script" (noun 1), especially "2. a. 
>>Handwriting, the characters used in hand-writing (as distinguished from 
>>print). Also attrib., as in script hand, letter", "b. Typogr. (In full 
>>script type.) A kind of type devised to imitate the appearance of 
>>handwriting", and "d. A style of handwriting resembling typography, both 
>>in the shape of the characters and in their not being joined together. In 
>>full script-writing; cf. print-script s.v. PRINT n. 16a. (Freq. used in 
>>the teaching of young children.)" vs. what we actually mean, "3. A kind 
>>of writing, a system of alphabetical or other written characters".
>>
>>
>>At 3/31/2005    12:42 PM, Manon Theroux wrote:
>>
>>>The DCRM(B) editors have revised (and significantly simplified) the 
>>>instructions for nonroman signatures contained in the delta draft. Here 
>>>is what we are proposing for the epsilon draft:
>>>
>>>http://www.library.yale.edu/~mtheroux/DCRM/NonromanSignatures.doc 
>>><http://www.library.yale.edu/%7Emtheroux/DCRM/NonromanSignatures.doc>
>>>
>>>I've also copied the new instructions in the text of this message, 
>>>below, though I'm not sure if the formatting will be preserved.
>>>
>>>We welcome your comments! Please send them to the list.
>
>--
>Barry E. Hinman
>Special Collections Librarian for Cataloging
>Department of Special Collections and University Archives
>Green Library (Bing Wing 408)
>557 Escondido Mall
>Stanford, California  94305-6004
>bhinman at stanford.edu
>
>