[DCRM-L] Appendix G: transcripton of rv

[Alex Thurman]

Option 4 sounds good to me.

--Alex

--On Sunday, January 08, 2006 7:11 PM -0500 "Deborah J. Leslie" 
<DJLeslie at folger.edu> 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
>
>
>
>