[DCRM-L] RE: Area 4

[Carol E Pardo]

I can certainly live with "too numerous for full transcription" as Deborah 
suggests for 4B6.2 etc.

On the Vostre example, I'm afraid I was unclear. My question about the 
"ces" was not whether it is correct transcription of "Ces presentes heures 
... " at the beginning of the 245 but of the date further along, i.e. is 
it "lan mil cinq ces le xxv iour dapuril ..." or "lan mil cinq ce[n]s le 
xxv iour dapuril ..." Again, I can't tell if the "n" is on the title page, 
part of a contraction, or not present at all. But the record for the 
variant in OCLC doesn account for it.

That's all from me. Thanks Deborah for spending your weekend reviewing all 
of this.

Carol Pardo

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:

> Thanks, Carol. Responses below.
>
> __________________________________________
> Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
i> Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee
> http://www.folger.edu/bsc/index.html
> Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
> 201 East Capitol St., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003
> djleslie at folger.edu || 202.675-0369 || http://www.folger.edu
>
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From: cep2 at columbia.edu [mailto:cep2 at columbia.edu]
> 	Sent: 22 September 2006 12:22
> 	To: Deborah J. Leslie
> 	Subject: Area 4
>
> 	Deborah--My queries, corrections, etc.
>
> 	I suppose it is too late to change text but if it were possible
> to change
> 	" ... too numerous and that some may be omitted ... " to " ...
> too
> 	numerous to transcribe fully and that some may be omitted ... "
> in 4B6.2,
> 	in 4B13.2 and 4C6.2, it would be useful and the rule would be
> easier to
> 	follow.[DJL]  I don't see the necessity of this addition, but
> since others may agree with you that it make the rules easier to follow,
> I've tentatively added "for full transcription" after "numerous." I'd
> like to hear comments in support or against this change.
>
> 	4C5 header should be amended to mimic 4B9 "Publisher statements
> fictitious
> 	or incorrect" should read "Publisher statements that are
> fictitious or
> 	incorrect"[DJL]  Good catch! I changed both of these captions to
> begin "Fictitious or iincorrect ..."
>
> 	4C10 In the editorial comment, is there any way to check whether
> the
> 	transcription should read "ces" as it does here or "cens" as it
> does in
> 	a similar record in OCLC? (Search under keywords Symon Vostre
> and date 1500
> 	to retrieve the variant in question.)[DJL]  The "cens" must be
> in error. "Ces presentes heures a lusage de ...", with some variation on
> spelling of "l'usage",  is a standard phrase for French books of hours.
>
> 	4D header reads "Date of publication ...." while the header for
> 4D3 reads
> 	"Dates of publication ... " Should they be consistent?[DJL]  You
> bet. 4D3, 4D4, 4D5, 4D7, 4D8. Changed "Dates" in caption to "Date".
> Search of AACR2 confirmed that while both forms ("date of publication"
> and "dates of publication") are used, the singular  is much more common,
> even in chapter 12, unless discussing situations explicitly involving
> two or more dates. I couldn't find any examples of the plural used in a
> caption.
> 	Again 4E header reads "Place of manufacture" while the header
> for 4E2
> 	reads "Supplied places of manufacture" and the text begins "If
> the place
> 	of manufacture ... " Should the form be consistent?[DJL]
> Changed. Also in 4E2, I assume
> 	that there is no period at the end of "Tullis Russell & Co" but
> I can't
> 	prove it.[DJL]  Added, per 0G3.1
>
> 	Carol Pardo
>