[DCRM-L] Appendix G: transcripton of rv

[Juliet McLaren]

Option3 seems to me the most reasonable. Juliet


At 04:11 PM 1/8/2006, you wrote:
>[Note: I embedded two images from Appendix G in this message, which appear 
>not to have come through. Please see Appendix G for examples: 
>http://www.folger.edu/bsc/dcrb/DCRMBepsilon20050531rcleancopy.pdf]
>
>
>
>The DCRM(B) editors send our wishes for a happy New Year, and crave this 
>group's collective wisdom. In Appendix G, the question has arisen about 
>the transcription of a curved r set next to a v when it is used to 
>approximate a w, as is done in some early German books [p. 155] ( ). 
>Currently, the cataloger is directed to transcribe as "rv [i.e., w]". The 
>example in the appendix is "rveysse [i.e. weysse]". One question in 
>particular that has been raised is why an rv used in place of a w gets 
>different treatment from a vv.
>
>
>
>DCRM(B) employs four different methods for transcribing letters that are 
>in error or that deviate from a modern norm.
>
>1)      Transcribe the modern equivalent. This is what we do with archaic 
>letter forms, such as the long s.
>
>2)      Transcribe what is there, making no correction or explanation. 
>This is what we do with vv as well as archaic spellings.
>
>3)      Transcribe what is there and make a correction, either through 
>"i.e." or "sic." This is what we do with typographical errors.
>
>4)      Transcribe what is intended. This is what we do with turned 
>letters, whether deliberate or inadvertent (see 0G). Our transcription of 
>the apostrophic forms of MD may reflect this method; or it may reflect the 
>first method of transcribing the modern equivalent. (I don't know; perhaps 
>we should figure out which is the guiding principle, which may help 
>resolve the rv question).
>
>
>
>The question is which of these categories fits the rv best: archaic 
>letterform, archaic but acceptable spelling, typographical error, or 
>turned letter.
>
>
>
>Option 1. The first option doesn't fit this case, since we are dealing 
>with two separate letters, one in an archaic form (curved r), but both of 
>which have a clear and unambiguous modern equivalent.
>
>
>
>Option 2. The second option is applying our treatment of vv in DCRM(B) to 
>rv. The grounds for treating vv as an archaic but acceptable form of w can 
>be found in their historical semio-etymological relationship. According to 
>the Shorter OED, the letter "W, the 23rd letter of the modern English 
>alphabet, is an addition to the ancient Roman alphabet, having originated 
>from a ligatured doubling of the Roman letter represented by the U and V 
>of modern alphabets. ..." This accounts for our transcription of vv 
>without correction or explanation. There is no such historical 
>relationship between rv and w. The rv cannot be considered analogous to vv 
>without seriously distorting the situation.
>
>
>
>Option 3. rv was used to provide a graphic verisimilitude to a w, and 
>since I have mostly seen it in display fonts, was probably used for the 
>same reason that vv was used--when the compositor ran out of w in the 
>appropriate font. An analogy is if a printer, having run out of d's, sets 
>a c and an l side-by-side. There is no semio-etymological relationship 
>between c l and d, but it can look enough like a d if a person squints, 
>has normal cognitive capabilities, and a context in which to interpret. 
>(And is set in a gothic typeface, which has extremely narrow spaces 
>between letters). It would be appropriate in this case to transcribe what 
>is set and provide an explanation: "cleath [i.e. death]" or "rvittenberg 
>[i.e. Wittenberg]."
>
>
>
>Option 4. One can argue that since the rv is intended to represent a w, 
>its use is more like a turned letter or an apostrophus than it is an 
>anomaly needing correction as in option 3. Neither provides a strict 
>analogy: a turned letter is a single letter, and for most of them, there 
>is only one option for transcription. An upside-down r cannot be 
>transcribed as anything other than an r. Deliberately-turned letters, such 
>as a turned u for an n, does provide us with a choice: transcribe u or n? 
>Transcribe "London" or "Londou [i.e. London]"? Since deliberately turned 
>letters can only be identified as such by close scrutiny of the typeface, 
>and may in fact be impossible in some cases (such as when an n and a u 
>really are indistinguishable from each other), I see no difficulty in 
>transcribing a deliberately-turned as the intended letter.
>
>
>
>How about an analogy between rv and the apostrophus [p. 151] ( )? As with 
>the relationship between vv and w, there is an historical relationship 
>between the apostrophic and modern forms of M (CI-backwards C) and D 
>(I-backwards C). This provides us with strong support in the decision to 
>transcribe apostrophic Roman numerals in their modern Roman equivalents. 
>Plus, we have no other option for transcribing the apostrophus. Since the 
>rv does provide other options than its intended letter of w for 
>transcription (i.e., rv), this analogy carries only moderate weight.
>
>
>
>
>
>To my mind, options 3 and 4 are the only contenders, (although I would be 
>interested if anyone has a closely-reasoned argument in favor of options 1 
>or 2). If we say that an rv is more like a deviation from the modern norm 
>that needs correction, it should be transcribed as "rv [i.e. w]". If we 
>say that an rv is more like an apostrophus or a turned letter, it should 
>be transcribed as w.
>
>
>
>Your opinions, please.
>
>
>_____________________________
>
>Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
>
>Head of Cataloging
>
>Folger Shakespeare Library
>
>201 East Capitol St., S.E.
>
>Washington, DC 20003
>
>202.675-0369
>
>djleslie at folger.edu
>
>