[DCRM-L] Emergency: 2C3.2, again

[at2186 at columbia.edu]

Deborah,

Here's what I said about this example when you asked in 2005. As I
recall there was no response, so perhaps it wasn't helpful (and
still won't be). But it still seems pertinent to me. In short, I
believe DCRM(B) retains 2C3.2 because (as in AACR2) an Area 2
phrase lacking the identification of a person or corporate body
doesn't qualify as a legit "statement of responsibility" and
therefore isn't punctuated like one.

That I think is a plausible answer for why the rule exists as
is--AACR2 compliance.

--Alex

----- Forwarded message from Alex Thurman <at2186 at columbia.edu>
-----
    Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 16:00:03 -0400
    From: Alex Thurman <at2186 at columbia.edu>
Reply-To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
 Subject: RE: [DCRM-L] DCRM(B) 2C3
      To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu

Hi, Deborah--

I'll make that argument, repeating part of what I said earlier but
with a
different conclusion.

I believe DCRM(B) currently prohibits a semicolon only if "the
phrase does
not name a person or corporate body." A subsequent stmt. of resp.
that does
include an identification would be introduced by a semi-colon, per
2C1's
instruction to follow 1E.

I think the key issue here is not "semicolon or not," but rather--is
a
phrase in an edition statement that does not name a person or a
corporate
body really a distinct [and, therefore, punctuated] statement of
responsibility?

The bottom line seems to be--why does a phrase that doesn't include
an
identification count as a statement of resp. in Area 1 but not in
Area 2?
If the editors decide to eliminate this distinction, then 2C1 will
need
revision as well as 2C3.

However, looking again at AACR2's treatment of Area 2, I can find no
examples there that contradict DCRM(B)'s examples in 2C1 and 2C3.
AACR2
doesn't punctuate Area 2 phrases that lack identifications (e.g.,
the
"partly rev." in "2nd. ed., partly rev.") as stmts. of resp.,
either. The
nearest example in AACR2 to our situation is in 1.2D1 and 2.2D1,
where
subsequent phrases without identification (such as "Repr., with
minor
revisions") are not introduced with semicolons.

So I now suspect that the historical reason behind DCRB/DCRM(B)'s
treatment
of this is AACR2 compliance. If we reverse the prohibitions in 2C1
and 2C3
and allow phrases without identification to be punctuated as stmts.
of
resp. then we are requiring transcriptions like "The second edition
/
revised and corrected" that contradict examples in AACR2.2B1.
Moreover, the
same principle of reserving stmt. of resp. punctuation for phrases
with an
identification obtains in the example in 2D1 (compare to 2E1) as
well.

Alex Thurman
Cataloger
Columbia University Libraries
535 W. 114th St.
New York, NY 10027
at2186 at columbia.edu


 --On Monday, August 08, 2005 2:05 PM -0400 "Deborah J. Leslie"
<DJLeslie at folger.edu> wrote:

> Is there anyone at all who wants to argue in favor of keeping the
> prohibition against introducing the semi-colon for subsequent
statements
> of responsibility in edition?
> I'm still very interested in hearing its history, if anyone knows
it.
>
>
> ________________________________
> Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
> Head of Cataloging
> Folger Shakespeare Library
> 201 East Capitol St., SE
> Washington, DC 20003
> 202.675-0369
> djleslie at folger.edu
>
>
>


i all,

I interpret DCRM(B) 2C3's injunction against introducing the
semicolon to
mean the following:

A clause in an edition statement should only be punctuated as a
statement
of responsibility (i.e., slash before first, semicolon before
subsequent)
if that clause names or otherwise identifies a person or corporate
body.

Here are the provided examples:

The fourth edition, with notes [no id., hence no slash]

A new edition / by Grace Webster, to which is added a life of the
author
[no id. for latter clause, hence no semicolon]

Extending this reading to Deborah's example,
"The second edition. Newly revised, and very much augmented with a
collection of many choise epistles, written by the most refined wits
of
France. Also some new additions to the complements and elegancies of
the
French tongue; never publish'd before."

The "most refined wits of France" are clearly the authors of the now
included epistles, but I don't think they did the revising and
augmenting,
so it looks odd to me to have the second sentence introduced by a
slash.
Perhaps the slash could come after augmented. Further, I would read
the
rule as saying that the phrase beginning "Also" does not contain any
identification and therefore wouldn't be preceded by a semicolon.
And I'd
drop that last semicolon before "never."

So following this reading of the rule, it might look like this:
The second edition, newly revised, and very much augmented / with a
collection of many choise epistles, written by the most refined wits
of
France, also some new additions to the complements and elegancies of
the
French tongue, never publish'd before

If I decided the "wits of France" was a description rather than an
identification, I'd omit the slash too.



----- End forwarded message -----



Quoting "Deborah J. Leslie" <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>:

> Hello all,
>
> I'm teaching for the first time with the new DCRM(B), and the
> prohibition against introducing the semi-colon in subsequent
> clauses in area 2 is still there, and it's still causing
> confusion. My reading of the DCRM- L archives (subject thread
> DCRM(B) 2C3) doesn't help enough. Is the rule saying that the
> following punctuation is not allowed?
>
> The second edition, newly revised and very much augmented with a
> collection of choose epistles / |b written by the most refined
> wits of France ; also some new additions to the complements and
> elegancies of the French tongue ; never publish'd before.
>
> Thanks!
> Deborah
> __________________________________
> 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
>