[DCRM-L] Title and Statement of Responsibility Area

Fri Oct 6 09:21:57 MDT 2006

The example in AACR2  1.1F7 is an excellent example of grammatically inseparable (though AACR2 calls it "necessary grammatically"): "prólogo del Excmo. Sr. D. Manuel Fraga Iribarne". The title is "Excmo. Sr." (and maybe "D."? For the sake of argument let's say it is). "del" is not part of the title--at least the preposition part and I would argue that the article part isn't either. So if you left the title out you would wind up with "prólogo del Manuel Fraga Iribarne," which doesn't make sense. I.e. it is grammatically inseparable--can't be separated from the phrase without making a grammatical mess. 

I agree "of the Royal Society" is not an example of "grammatically inseparable" (or for that matter "necessary grammatically"). As Manon mentions, were also thinking of places where case endings come into play, but that wasn't all.

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568 

________________________________

	From: Manon Theroux [mailto:manon.theroux at yale.edu] 
	Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:07 PM
	To: jxa16 at psulias.psu.edu; Robert Maxwell; joeas at goshen.edu; djleslie at folger.edu; manon.theroux at yale.edu; rbrandt at library.berkeley.edu; auc1 at psulias.psu.edu; skuce at mit.edu; jane.gillis at yale.edu; juliet at ucrac1.ucr.edu; jfletchr at library.ucla.edu; erob at loc.gov
	Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Title and Statement of Responsibility Area

	I think David's point had more to do with interpretation of the term "grammatically inseparable."

	He is interpreting "John Smith of the Royal Society" as grammatically inseparable. It sounds like he thinks he may NOT transcribe it as "John Smith ..." because it falls under the first exception listed in DCRM(B).

	I don't think we have been using "grammatically inseparable" in this way, have we? I would not interpret "John Smith of the Royal Society" as grammatically inseparable and would assume "John Smith ..." to be acceptable practice (though not something I would do myself!). Haven't we been using "grammatically inseparable" to mean more "serious" situations where words with case endings come into play, etc., or the phrase simply wouldn't make sense unless you included certain words?

	I think David is saying that DCRB's "necessary grammatically" is more meaningful than DCRM(B)'s "grammatically inseparable." That "necessity" is a stronger concept. 

	I guess specific examples here would help explain what we mean, but I can't find any right now.

	-Manon

	At 09:54 PM 10/5/2006, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:

		DCRB's default instruction was to omit, using the mark of omission, all
		qualification, &c., except in certain circumstances. DCRM(B) is neutral
		on the subject. Officially, it neither encourages nor discourages,
		although in the examples we have tried to be encouraging by including
		all data connected with a person's name. Compare:
		DCRB (1G8): Generally omit from the statement of responsibility such
		qualifications as initials indicating membership in societies, academic
		degrees, statements of positions held unless: 
		a) the elements are necessary grammatically or b) the elements are
		necessary for identifying the person or are useful in establishing a
		context for the person's activity (initials of religious orders,
		phrases, or adjectives denoting place names, etc.) or c) the statement
		of responsibility represents the author only by a pseudonym, a
		descriptive phrase, or nonalphabetic symbols.
		DCRM(B) (1E8)
		Qualifications such as initials indicating membership in societies,
		academic degrees, and statements of positions held may be omitted from
		the statement of responsibility, using the mark of omission, unless:
		a)      the qualifications are grammatically inseparable
		or      b)       the qualifications are necessary for identifying the
		person or are useful in establishing a context for the person's activity
		(initials of religious orders, phrases, or adjectives denoting place
		names, etc.
		or      c)       the statement of responsibility represents the author
		only by a pseudonym, a descriptive phrase, or nonalphabetic symbols.

		The point of all this is that there are certain circumstances under
		which qualifications &c. may *not* be omitted. They are the same
		conditions given in DCRB. Best practice will dictate that "John Smith of
		the Royal Society" be transcribed in full (and as a cataloger and a
		teacher of catalogers, I've always encouraged liberal use of exception
		b), but it is permissible for a cataloger to transcribe "John Smith ..."
		DCRB's "grammatical necessity" is less clear than "grammatically
		inseparable," especially since DCRB would mandate the latter
		transcription, and we know with certainty that DCRB was not trying to
		get at something different (the revision of BDRB into DCRB is within
		living memory)
		General comment: There are a number of permitted practices in DCRM(B)
		that would not be recommended as best practice for those attempting deep
		cataloging of rare materials. It is largely impossible to tell which
		from which in DCRM(B) itself. After all this is finished, I plan on
		writing a DCRM(B) companion or manual for application, which will make
		that distinction. (There, I've said it. Now I have to do it.)
		__________________________________________
		Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
		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  <http://www.folger.edu  > 

		-----Original Message-----
		From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [ mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu <mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> ] On
		Behalf Of David Woodruff
		Sent: 18 September 2006 14:58
		To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
		Subject: [DCRM-L] Title and Statement of Responsibility Area

		1E8 a). First sentence reads: Qualifications such as initials indicating
		membership in societies, academic degrees, and statements of positions
		held may be omitted from the statement of responsibility, using the mark
		of omission, unless:
		a)  the qualifications are grammatically inseparable
		Why should it matter if qualifications are grammatically separable or
		not? In "John Smith of the Royal Society," "of the Royal Society" is
		inseparable, but it can easily be dropped, leaving "John Smith." DCRB
		has "unless a) the elements are necessary grammatically..." which may be
		getting at something slightly different. Perhaps cases were the author's
		name is connected syntactically to the rest of the sentence through the
		words for the position held.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20061006/49f3751b/attachment.htm 