[DCRM-L] Title and Statement of Responsibility Area

[Laurence Creider]

In reference to "a)  the qualifications are grammatically inseparable": 
Can we please put a definition of "grammatically inseparable" in the 
glossary or in a footnote?  I did a search on google for the phrase and 
well over half the incidences of "grammatically inseparable" are connected 
with rare book cataloging rules.  The other uses are in the context of 
non-scholarly discussions of biblical passages, a document put out by the 
Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN that refers to serial titles 
(AGRIS: Guidelines for the Description of Information Objects in the 
International Information System on Agricultural Sciences and Technology), 
and this lovely phrase in the foreword to a textbook (whose context I 
can't retrieve): "The phasal predicator begin (the first sentence) is 
grammatically inseparable from the infinitive of the notional verb fight, 
the two lexemes making one ..."

Some instances, such as the one Bob cites from AACR2 1.F7 are clear. 
Another instance is that the word "of" is usually construed as being 
"inseparable" along with other expressions of the genitive.  Other 
situations are less clear.  For example, "by" when used of agency is not 
(Book of truth / by Aethel Aardvark), but agency expressed in Latin by "a" 
or "ab" is sometimes considered inseparable but more generally not. 
Participles such as emendata may or may not be treated as separable from 
the word they agree with.  On occasion, it is pretty clear that the choice 
of whether or not to interpose ISBD punctuation or MARC subfielding is the 
result of page layout rather than considerations of grammatical 
separability.  Sometimes the choice is made because the author/and or 
printer is thinking in terms of analogues to a vernacular language.

All told, I think we need to sort out grammatically separable and 
inseparable for prepositional constructions and those indicated by 
agreement of case endings.  If we can't figure this out in time for the 
publication of DCRM(B), perhaps Deborah will address the matter in her 
manual?

Larry

Laurence S. Creider, Ph.D., M.S.L.S.
Head, General Cataloging Unit
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 505-646-4707
Fax: 505-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu

On Thu, 5 Oct 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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 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.
>
>
>