[DCRM-L] Appendix G: transcripton of rv

[buettnerl at csl.edu]

The "rv [i.e. w]" option seems reasonable.  

I have an analogous question, though.  What do we do with certain works by
French printers who used "lz" for "k?"  (see McKerrow. An introduction to
bibliography for literary students. p.77).  (N.B. I haven't yet seen this in
transcription fields.  I've only seen this in signatures, which is the topic
McKerrow discusses here.)  My French isn't very strong, so I must ask, is "k"
used much in French?  Is "lz" for "k" even a concern for transcription fields?  

Lyle

~~~~~~~~~~ 
Lyle E. Buettner 
Special Collections
Concordia Seminary Library 
801 Seminary Place 
St. Louis, MO  63105 
314-505-7035 
fax 314-505-7046 



-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of
Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 6:12 PM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] Appendix G: transcripton of rv


[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