[DCRM-L] Appendix G: transcripton of rv

[lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu]

Option 3 has the advantage of continuity with our current practice.  The 
disadvantage, as Stephen pointed out, is that it lumps the practice in with 
errors.  One is not making a correction in this case, one is recording the 
characters or phoneme the printer intended.

Adopting option 3 in the current environment requires 3 versions of the 
information if the rv is used in a title: a) ... rveysse (i.e. weysse) ..., 
b) ... weysse ..., c) ... rvweysse .... Of course this isn't a problem when the 
rv is used in a place of publication or statement of responsibility.  Adopting 
option 4 would result in 2 versions of the title, perhaps one with a note 
saying that the form on the item is rv. 

Before making a decision, I would ask how often different states or issues are 
distinguished by the rv?  What does the current practice accomplish?  Would it 
be easier for the user to see option 4 with a note when deemed necessary by the 
cataloger (or mandated by the rules?).  I would lean towards option 4, but I am 
no expert on incunables.

Larry Creider   

Quoting "Deborah J. Leslie" <DJLeslie at folger.edu>:

> [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
> 
>  
> 
>