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

Wed Jan 11 07:59:16 MST 2006

I too apologize for checking in so late in the game. But for what it's 
worth, I like option 4 best. I could live with options 1 or 2. Option 3 
is, in my opinion, unacceptable. --Sarah

Ann W. Copeland wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

-- 
Sarah S. Fisher
Senior Assistant Librarian
Coordinator, Special Collections Cataloging and Processing Unit
Bibliographic Control Dept.
University of Delaware Library
Newark, DE 19717-5267
(302)831-1512
(302)831-1046 (fax)
slsf at udel.edu