[SPAM *27.500] RE: [DCRM-L] Appendix G: transcripton of rv

[Ann W. Copeland]

No new arguments from me. I do prefer option 4 and do NOT like option 3. 
Thanks, Annie

  At 06:29 PM 1/10/2006, R. Arvid Nelsen wrote:
>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