[DCRM-L] Reconsidering digraphs

[Jane Gillis]

Regarding digraphs, there are several issues.  If we follow the manuscript 
tradition, as Larry has pointed out, the "ae" and "oe" ligatures in Latin 
would not be transcribed as digraphs but as 2 letters, but the ae ligature 
in Ango-Saxon would be transcribed as a digraph.

The question is whether or not we are following the manuscript tradition 
for early printed works.  In DCRB, 0A, Scope and purpose, the last sentence 
of the first paragraph reads:

"They may be used in describing any book, however, particularly those 
produced by hand or by methods continuing the tradition of the 
hand-produced book. "

The corresponding part in DCRM(B), 0A, Scope and Purpose, reads:

"They are especially appropriate for such publications produced before the 
introduction of machine printing in the nineteenth century. However, they 
may be used in describing any printed book, including machine-press 
publications, artists' books, private press books, and other materials 
produced in the modern era. "

What is no longer mentioned is "continuing the tradition of the 
hand-produced book."  Is this deliberate?

Manon gave the example of a 20th century French book with an "oe" ligature, 
which we could transcribe as written but we would not be allowed to 
transcribe an "ae" ligature in an incunable as written.  The implication is 
that AACR2r allows for more "transcription" than DCRM(B) does.

Let's take another, more illustrative, example.   For one title, we have a 
15th Latin manuscript and a 15th Latin printed book.  They are identical as 
far as words, letters and letter forms.  According to AMREMM, the "ae" 
ligature in the manuscript would be transcribed as two letters.  Cataloged 
according to DCRB or AACR2r, the "ae" in the printed item would be 
transcribed as a digraph.  DCRM(B) follows AMREMM and would transcribe the 
"ae" ligature as 2 letters.

If we do follow the manuscript tradition, as laid out in AMREMM, it might 
be good to follow it more closely.  Here is what it says:

AMREMM 0F2.1

"In general, transcribe pre-modern letter forms using their modern 
equivalents, but maintain language-specific characters, such as Anglo-Saxon 
... . Transcribe ligatures by giving their component parts as separate 
letters.  The ligature e-caudata [... should similarly be rendered by 
separating its component parts into a and e.  Do not, however, separate the 
component letters of the ligatured digraphs ae in Anglo-Saxon, oe in 
French, or ae and oe in Scandinavian languages."

For Manon's example of an oe ligature in a French book, if DCRM(B) did 
follow AMREMM,  the oe would be transcribed as a digraph.

It seems to me that there are reasons why these letters and ligatures are 
either transcribed or broken into component parts by manuscript catalogers 
and consequently by AMREMM.  These same reasons would apply to early 
printed books.

Jane


Jane Gillis | Rare Book Cataloger|  Sterling Memorial Library
Yale University | New Haven CT  06520
(203)432-2633 (voice) | (203)432-4047 (fax) | jane.gillis at yale.edu