[DCRM-L] Reconsidering digraphs

[Jane Gillis]

I would say we do have to retain these narrow exceptions.  As Manon pointed 
out, this could affect uniform titles.  If both AACR2r and AMREMM have this 
narrow exception, why would the DCRM modules not have it?

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


At 09:40 AM 4/26/2005 Tuesday-0600, you wrote:
>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