[DCRM-L] Reconsidering digraphs

[Manon Theroux]

Uniform titles would continue to be constructed as they are now, no matter 
what we decide to do with DCRM(B). I don't recall saying anything about 
them on this list, so I'm a little puzzled. But I'm glad Jane has renewed 
discussion of the issue.

We have three options:

#1. Go with the current DCRM(B) instruction to always separate 
digraphs/ligatures
#2. Go with the current DCRB/LCRI instruction not to separate certain 
digraphs/ligatures (oe in French, etc.) - I guess AMREMM follows this, 
according to Jane - I don't have a copy to consult
#3. Go with exact transcription of the digraphs/ligatures as they appear 
(as was proposed on the list back in February)

My own preference would be #2 or #3.

Option #1 doesn't appear to be supported by any of the DCRM(B) principles.

Option #2 is supported by DCRM(B) principle #6 (Rules shall be compatible 
with DCRB except in cases where changes are necessary to align more closely 
to current revisions of AACR 2 or to conform to the above principles).

Some might argue that option #2 also fits with principle #5 as well (Rules 
shall conform to the structure and language of the latest revision of AACR 
2 to the extent possible). Strictly speaking, an LCRI that contains the 
instruction to retain certain digraphs (not AACR 2) but the gloss on the 
principle does go on to say "the cataloging community within which DCRM(B) 
has been developed has a strong association with AACR 2 as interpreted and 
applied by the Library of Congress."

I'm curious to know what other Anglo-American rule interpretations say. The 
Canadian interpretation is: "Separate the letters forming ligatures in 
English, French and other languages (except Danish, Icelandic, Norwegian); 
e.g. encyclopaedia not encyclopædia". And other cataloging codes for that 
matter!

Option #3 is supported by DCRM(B) principle #2 (Rules shall provide for 
accurate representations of the entity as it describes itself, notably 
through instructions regarding transcription, transposition, and omission.)

-Manon
P.S. Do diagraphs index differently than as separate letters in anyone's 
online catalog?


At 4/26/2005 01:22 PM, Jane Gillis wrote:
>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