[DCRM-L] Title and Statement of Responsibility Area

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Thanks, David. I'll consult the editors about whether this is a helpful
distinction to make.
By the way, we editors (all those who spoke up, anyway) agreed with your
suggestion to drop "Editorial" from "Editorial comment," and to drop
"On" from "On source." I also changed the one place we had "On title
page" to "Title page" for the same reasoning. 
__________________________________________
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: 07 October 2006 18:44
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Title and Statement of Responsibility Area

Most of the occurences of "grammatically inseparable" are fine, because
they deal with transposition. Three that deal with omission, where you
might consider substituting "grammatically necessary" for "grammatically
inseparable" are: 1A2.3 Omission of pious invocations, etc., 1A2.4
Multipart monographs, 1B4 Title proper with grammatically inseparable
designation. Though to be frank, I didn't consider the issue in relation
to these rules until I searched for them, probably because I know what
is meant.

I trust you're having a productive weekend!

>>> "Deborah J. Leslie" <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>  >>>
Ah, I'm getting it now! Thanks for explaining it further. You're
suggesting there we use both the concept and phrasing of "grammatically
inseparable" when discussing transposition, but to keep DCRB's
"grammatically necessary" when discussing what may be omitted. Is it
only in 1E8 that you are recommending using "grammatically necessary?" 
Other thoughts? 
D.
__________________________________________
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: 07 October 2006 05:15
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] Title and Statement of Responsibility Area

I agree entirely that it's usually helpful to retain qualifications.
Clearly I should have picked a less illustrious bunch than the Royal
Society for my example!

The question, though, is when it's possible to drop qualifications, and
my argument is against the change from DCRB's "grammatically necessary"
to "grammatically inseparable." The two phrases may have been intended
as equivalent, but I feel a significant difference. In a construction
like "John Smith of the Royal Society," "of the Royal Society" depends
on "John Smith" and cannot be transposed to some other position. It is
thus grammatically inseparable. But it is not grammatically necessary,
and could be dropped without disturbing the grammar of what remains.
In a construction like "scritto dal padre Zamboni," however, "dal padre"
is grammatically inseparable, but also grammatically necessary to make
the syntactic connection between "scritto" and "Zamboni." It can't be
dropped where "of the Royal Society" can, even though both are
inseparable. I think the concept of "grammatically inseparable" as
introduced in 1B1.1 works perfectly well in explaining when
transposition is impossible, but it doesn't seem relevant to omission.
I'm lookiing forward to your handbook on best practices!