[DCRM-L] Reconsidering digraphs

[Robert Maxwell]

I'd like to hear the reasoning for why digraphs are "content" rather
than "form." 
 
The only argument I can think of is that they might actually be
considered separate letters, i.e., "oe" is not considered two letters
stuck together, but a single letter. 
 
I can speak with some authority that this is *not* the case in Latin.
"oe" and "ae" are diphthongs, i.e., two separate vowel letters
pronounced in one syllable, and if the two letters are stuck together
they are simply ligatures, no different from ct and st (which can also
be two letters pronounced in a single syllable). "oe" and "ae" are not
considered separate letters in Latin. 
 
Nor are they, as far as I can tell, in French. At least in my
dictionary, "oecumenique" is filed directly after "odyssee" and
"oeuvrer" just before "off", i.e., at least so far as filing is
concerned, they are considered ligatures, not a separate letter. I would
think if they were considered a separate letter they would be filed
somewhere else, perhaps after all the other Os. It is true that "oe" in
this dictionary is printed as an oe ligature. But I would consider that
form, not content. I cannot speak for Scandinavian languages. 
 
Furthermore, as far as I know all systems file the MARC ae and oe as
though they were separate letters. This of course could be changed but
it would result in an extreme amount of confusion I should think for our
users, so I have my doubts that the custom of filing them as though
separate letters will ever change.
 
Until hearing further argument I think they are ligatures, i.e., form,
rather than content, at least in most cases.
 
Bob

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: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 7:33 AM
	To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
	Subject: [DCRM-L] Reconsidering digraphs
	
	

	Dear cataloging colleagues,

	 

	This weekend four of the five DCRM(B) editors are meeting at the
Folger for intense editing sessions. I'm happy to report that so far
we're making good progress, but find there is an issue we want to
re-open, and request guidance from the larger community. It has to do
with the separation of ae and oe digraphs, or "ligatures" as the rules
call them. Please keep in mind that we are not speaking of decorative
ligatures, such as ct's and st's as a single type-body. We are only
speaking of two letters written as one. 

	 

	As far as we can discover, AACR2 gives no guidance on digraphs.
(One of us thought she had found an AACR2 instruction to separate all
ligatures, but now cannot find it and wonders if she imagined it.) LCRI
1.0E says to separate ligatures into their component letters, but makes
exceptions for modern French and Scandinavian, in which oe and ae are to
be transcribed as a single character. DCRB adds Anglo-Saxon and ancient
Scandinavian languages to the exception list. 

	 

	The current draft of DCRM(B) has simplified the instruction:
separate all ligatures into their component letters, no exceptions. But
we feel we need to reconsider that instruction given our desire to make
the transcription more precise in terms of content. AE and oe digraphs
have always been part of the MARC character set. We realize we are
having a hard time justifying the separation of digraphs in
transcription. 

	 

	An instruction to transcribe all digraphs as digraphs, in any
language at all, goes against the grain of experience for many of us.
The ESTC, on the other hand, has been transcribing digraphs as such all
along. We need to winnow out the aesthetic arguments and focus on what
we are trying to accomplish with transcription. (All other things being
equal, aesthetic arguments count, but only if all other things really
are equal). 

	 

	At its most basic level, the DCRM transcription principle is to
transcribe the content, but not the form, of printed text. Thus, we
retain archaic and incorrect spellings, but normalize capitalization and
line endings -- the former being content, the latter form. The digraph
question comes down to this: do digraphs represent content (does their
joining together actually create a new letter) or do they represent form
(just a conventional way of writing these combinations of letters)? We
as a group are leaning more toward the consideration of digraphs as
content. What do you think? 

	 

	_________________________________
	Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
	Head of Cataloging
	Folger Shakespeare Library
	djleslie at folger.edu
	http://www.folger.edu

	 

	 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20050222/c382ccbe/attachment.htm