[DCRM-L] Reconsidering digraphs

[Manon Theroux]

My dissatisfaction with the current DCRM(B) instruction springs from the 
realization that if I'm cataloging, say, a 20th-century French book with a 
title that has the "oe" together, AACR2/LCRIs would allow me to transcribe 
as found (as would DCRB), but DCRM(B) would not.

I expect rules for rare materials cataloging to allow more faithful 
transcription than AACR2/LCRIs. Thus, I would prefer that we either

1) stick to the current DCRB instructions for transcribing "oe" and "ae" or
2) simply transcribe them as found

-Manon


At 2/22/2005 09:32 AM, you wrote:
>Dear cataloging colleagues,
>
>This weekend four of the five DCRM(B) editors are meeting at the Folger 
>for intense editing sessions. Im happy to report that so far were 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 ligaturesas the rules call them. Please keep in mind 
>that we are not speaking of decorative ligatures, such as cts and sts 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
><mailto:djleslie at folger.edu>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/c45b1537/attachment.htm