[DCRM-L] Appendix G: transcripton of rv

Tue Jan 10 16:29:59 MST 2006

Sorry for the tardiness of this reply -- many valuable arguments have been made and I have been weighing them when possible.  In some ways I really like the idea of transcribing the text as it appears on the page and providing added entries for normalized forms of the words -- that just appeals to my "transcription in transcription fields" mentality.  But, truth be told, considering the possible number of instances in which this typographic convention would produce identifiable variations in different editions/issues/states and the number of people to whom the difference would be significant, I think that assuming intended form in transcription and making a note elsewhere in the record would suffice.  There may be basic principles for categorizing different types of typographic variation but I also think pragmatics should be considered.  So, for the time being, option 4 seems preferred.  

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

>>> DJLeslie at folger.edu 01/10/06 01:36PM >>>
Thanks to Kate, who is right that the editors would like opinions, even
if it's a "me, too;" we don't necessarily need new arguments. 
________________________
Deborah J. Leslie
Folger Library
djleslie at folger.edu 

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Kate Moriarty
Sent: Tuesday, 10 January, 2006 16:26
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu 
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Appendix G: transcripton of rv

This sounds like a really good idea. Using this new phrasing for option 
4 would put transcription of rv under that option and make it a "w," 
which would help the end user. It's also logical and maintains 
consistency in transcription practice. Based on what I've speed-taught 
myself about the apostrophus, I would also say that it fits under option

1 as an archaic form transcribed to its modern equivalent (Webster's 3rd

New International Dictionary - very helpful!). This has all been said 
already, but I post it since the editors were looking for opinions.

Kate

Deborah J. Leslie wrote:

>Thanks very much, Brian. I also wanted to pick up on Lyle Buettner's
observation about lz used for "k" in French printing. Our (much
experienced) cataloger of rare continental works confirms that he has
often seen this substitution, and that it is always in signature
statements. He considers it a "k."  
> 
>Signature statements do not require the same level of transcription as
title information; still, I'm wondering if a principle for this sort of
situation is evolving: deliberately-turned letters and the use of other
characters to create a graphic verisimilitude when the intended letter
is obvious can be transcribed as the intended letter. I'm inclined to
think of the transcription of apostrophic forms as not falling into this
category, but is rather a modernization of archaic forms. 
> 
>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 
>
>________________________________
>
>From: dcrm-l-admin at lib.byu.edu on behalf of Hillyard, Brian
>Sent: Tue 2006-01-10 05:18
>To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu 
>Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Appendix G: transcripton of rv
>
>
>
>I've taken advantage of the new Zeta version to search all instances of
"[i.e." and I feel that because "rv [i.e., w]" would not make any sense
to a catalogue user without experience of early German fonts and
typesetting or without seeing the original, it is less convincing than
any other usage of "[i.e."
>
>Best wishes for 2006
>
>Brian
>
>********************************************
>Dr Brian Hillyard
>Rare Book Collections Manager
>National Library of Scotland
>George IV Bridge, Edinburgh, EH1 1EW
>b.hillyard at nls.uk 
>Tel: 0131-623 3889 (direct dial)
>Tel: 0131-623 3700 (main switchboard)
>Fax: 0131-623 3888
>
>
>
>-----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: 09 January 2006 00:12
>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 
>
>
>
>
>*******************************************************************
>Visit the National Library of Scotland online at www.nls.uk 
>*******************************************************************
>This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you
>are not the intended recipient, please notify the ICT Helpdesk on
>+44 131 623 3789 or ict at nls.uk and delete this e-mail.  The
>statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
>author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Library of
>Scotland.  This message is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998
>and Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and has been
>scanned by MessageLabs.
>*******************************************************************
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Kate S. Moriarty
Rare Book Catalog Librarian
Pius XII Memorial Library
Saint Louis University
3650 Lindell Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63108
Phone: (314) 977-3098
moriarks at slu.edu 