[DCRM-L] Reconsidering digraphs

[Robert Maxwell]

I think we need to clarify something here. The rule in question says
nothing about transcription of ligatures in English or Latin. These have
always been transcribed separately, both under DCRB and AACR2. So the
presence in English of words containing digraphs, whether the correct
spelling or not, is not the issue. The narrow issue is the treatment of
ae ligature in Anglo-Saxon, of oe ligature in French, and ae or oe
ligature in ancient and modern Scandinavian languages. We have not and
do not transcribe these as ligatures in Latin or English or any other
language, nor are we proposing to introduce this into DCRM. The only
question is, is it logical to retain the narrow exceptions for
Anglo-Saxon, French, and Scandinavian languages. Expansion to other
ligatures in other languages has not been proposed.
 

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568 

 


________________________________

	From: dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu]
On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
	Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 8:24 PM
	To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
	Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Reconsidering digraphs
	
	
	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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20050426/386f6700/attachment.htm