[DCRM-L] Reconsidering digraphs

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Which English words? 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu on behalf of Juliet McLaren 
	Sent: Mon 2005-04-25 18:33 
	To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Reconsidering digraphs
	
	



	I second Jane's comments, with the added note that these are not
	necessarily obsolete, nor related just to typographic conventions of an
	earlier era.  The 'oe' and 'ae' digraphs are still correct spelling in a
	number of English words.
	
	Juliet
	
	At 01:48 PM 4/25/2005, Jane Gillis wrote:
	>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
	
	

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 6702 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20050425/d1b7ddcb/attachment.bin