[DCRM-L] imperfect copies

Thu Apr 6 10:59:14 MDT 2006

Hello all,

Regarding the "nitpicky" note pertaining to "however" (we all know we like to be nitpicky!), I would like to refer to Strunk and White's take on the word:

"Avoid starting a sentence with however when the meaning is "nevertheless." The word usually serves better when it is not in the first position . ... When however comes first, it means "in whatever way" or "to whatever extent."  

Clearly this is meant to be advisory and not prescriptive, but if we are concerned about "correctness" I thought it should be considered.

Sorry for the lateness of my response.  I also liked the wording suggested by Stephen and think that "perfect" is preferable to "complete" -- especially since we have a definition.

Thanks,
Arvid

R. Arvid Nelsen
Coord. of Technical Services/Original Cataloger/Classical Studies Librarian
University of California, San Diego
Mandeville Special Collections Library
9500 Gilman Drive, 0175S
La Jolla, CA 92093-0175
Phone: 858-534-6766
Fax: 858-534-5950

>>> penny.welbourne at yale.edu 04/05/06 02:32PM >>>
I think Beth's suggestion to move "however" to the beginning of the 
sentence is an excellent one.

Penny

At 02:43 PM 4/5/2006, you wrote:
>I think this last suggestion is about as clear as it can get.
>
>But one nitpick -- would it be clearer to reposition the "however?" It 
>sets off the contrast between describing the copy and describing the 
>"perfect" copy more closely for me, at least.
>
>0B2. Imperfect copies. In general, base the description on the copy in 
>hand. HOWEVER, if this copy is known to be imperfect, and details of a 
>perfect (or more perfect) copy can be determined, base the description on 
>the perfect copy. Use brackets only where required for description of the 
>perfect copy. In such cases <…>
>
>Beth
>
>At 01:53 PM 4/5/2006, you wrote:
>>We have the term defined in the glossary:
>>Perfect copy. A copy of a publication that is physically complete and 
>>correctly arranged, as issued.
>>
>>This is exactly the situation we mean to convey with 0B2. What’s more, it 
>>is almost unbearably awkward to use “copy without the imperfection(s)” 
>>since for clarity’s sake, it must be used more than once in the text of 
>>the rule. I also think that the addition of the parenthetical phrase “or 
>>more perfect” covers reasonable contingencies. Again, my suggestion is:
>>
>>0B2. Imperfect copies. In general, base the description on the copy in 
>>hand. If this copy is known to be imperfect, however, and details of a 
>>perfect (or more perfect) copy can be determined, base the description on 
>>the perfect copy. Use brackets only where required for description of the 
>>perfect copy. In such cases <…>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [ mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On 
>>Behalf Of Stephen Skuce
>>Sent: 05 April 2006 13:47
>>To: DCRM Revision Group List; DCRM Revision Group List
>>Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] imperfect copies
>>
>>Deborah,
>>
>>The version of 0B2 originally posted for comment today already made 
>>reference to "the perfect copy," so I felt free to reuse the term.  But I 
>>will say I noticed the term's presence: I think we had lots of discussion 
>>(and nervousness) in the glossary group and in BSC generally about using 
>>the term "perfect copy" because of the chance for confusion with the 
>>loaded term "ideal copy."
>>
>>Stephen
>>
>>At 01:29 M 4/5/2006 -0400, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
>>
>>
>>One of my earlier rewrites reads almost exactly as does Stephens, but I 
>>was concerned about the introduction of the word perfect.Weve had 
>>discussion on that before.  If we are going to use perfect,whats to 
>>prevent us from introducing it earlier, as in:
>>
>>
>>
>>0B2. Imperfect copies. In general, base the description on the copy in 
>>hand. If this copy is known to be imperfect, however, and details of a 
>>perfect copy can be determined, base the description on the perfect 
>>copy.  Use brackets only where required for description of the perfect copy.
>>
>>
>>
>>We do have pefect copyin the glossary. Can someone remind me why we 
>>decided not to use it in 0B2?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [ mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On 
>>Behalf Of Stephen Skuce
>>Sent: 05 April 2006 12:53
>>To: DCRM Revision Group List; DCRM-l at lib.byu.edu 
>>Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] imperfect copies
>>
>>
>>
>>I think breaking up the long second sentence helps.
>>
>>
>>0B2. Imperfect copies. In general, base the description on the copy in 
>>hand. If this copy is known to be imperfect, however, and details of a 
>>copy without the imperfection(s) can be determined, base the description 
>>on the copy without the imperfection(s).  Use brackets only where 
>>required for description of the perfect copy.
>>
>>Stephen
>>At 11:57 AM 4/5/2006 -0400, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
>>
>>
>>Dear colleagues,
>>
>>Im not sure the instructions for cataloging an imperfect item when a 
>>description for a perfect item is available are clear.
>>
>>0B2. Imperfect copies. In general, base the description on the copy in 
>>hand. If this copy is known to be imperfect, however, and details of a 
>>copy without the imperfection(s) can be determined, base the description 
>>on the copy without the imperfection(s), bracketing only as description 
>>of the perfect copy would require.
>>
>>Is this clear? Is there a better way of saying it?
>>
>>__________________________________________
>>
>>Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
>>
>>Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee
>>
>><http://www.folger.edu/bsc/index.html>http://www.folger.edu/bsc/index.html 
>>
>>Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
>>
>>201 East Capitol St., S.E.
>>
>>Washington, D.C. 20003
>>
>>djleslie at folger.edu || 202.675-0369
>>
>><http://www.folger.edu>http://www.folger.edu 
>>
>>| Stephen Skuce  |  Rare Books Cataloging Librarian     | MIT 
>>Libraries  |  Building 14E-210B  |  617.253.0654 |  skuce at mit.edu 
>>
>>| Stephen Skuce  |  Rare Books Cataloging Librarian     | MIT 
>>Libraries  |  Building 14E-210B  |  617.253.0654 |  skuce at mit.edu 
>
>----------------------
>Beth M. Russell
>Associate Professor
>Head, Special Collections Cataloging
>The Ohio State University Libraries
>1858 Neil Avenue Mall
>Columbus OH 43210-1286
>614-247-7463
>FAX 614-292-2015
>russell.363 at osu.edu 
>----------------------

Penny Welbourne
Rare Book Team
Catalog Department
Yale University Library
penny.welbourne at yale.edu 
Phone: (203)432-8378  