[DCRM-L] Oops on digraphs

[Deborah J. Leslie]

For DCRM cataloging, the "simplification" of the LCRI makes no
difference, because explicit instructions are written in the rules.
However, the discussion should be opened again when it's time for
revision. It may be a whole new world out there by then. Speaking of
which, did anybody read Michael Gorman's piece in the Dec 2007 _American
Libraries_ about RDA? I was looking forward to the letters section in
the Jan/Feb 2008 issue, only to be dismayed that the whole space was
taken up with responses ad nauseum to the English only article. 

_____________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Head of Cataloging
Folger Shakespeare Library
djleslie at folger.edu
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 Elizabeth Robinson
Sent: Monday, 07 January, 2008 17:38
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Oops on digraphs


I asked Kay Guiles (CPSO) about this. Here is his
reply:

>>> Kay D Guiles 1/7/2008 4:50:08 PM >>>
Elizabeth:

I have a May 1995 version of LCRI 1.0E that reads as
follows:

"Pre-Modern Forms of Letters

In general, transcribe letters as they appear in the
source. However, convert earlier forms of letters and
earlier forms of diacritical marks into their modern
form, as specified herein. Separate ligatures that are
occasional stylistic usages ( OE dipus, alumn ae ,
etc.) rather than standard usages in the modern
orthography of the language, e.g., oe in French (as in
oe uvre) or ae in Danish (as in s ae rtryk). If there
is any doubt as to the correct conversion of elements
to modern forms, transcribe them from the source as
exactly as possible. (See also the section on Special
Letters, Diacritical Marks, and Punctuation Marks.)"

In the text above, I have used the underline to
indicate ligatures. When we revised the LCRI several
years ago, we thought we were "simplifying" by
removing the distinction between determining
"occasional stylistic usages" and "regular" usages. We
thought it simpler "to record what you see, using the
typographical facilities available (MARC character
set) or the LCRI."

The revised text reads:

"Pre-Modern Forms of Letters

In general, transcribe letters as they appear in the
source. However, convert earlier forms of letters and
earlier forms of diacritical marks into their modern
form, as specified herein. If there is any doubt as to
the correct conversion of elements to modern forms,
transcribe them from the source as exactly as
possible. (See also the section on Special Letters,
Diacritical Marks, and Punctuation Marks.)"

Kay

>>>>

Sorry, the underlines Kay put in don't translate in
Yahoo. But I think you don't need them.

Elizabeth A. Robinson
Team Leader
Rare Book Cataloging Team
Special Materials Cataloging Division
Library of Congress


--- Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell at byu.edu> wrote:

> Going through the latest RDA draft I notice digraphs
> (as in Encyclopaedia Britannica) are used in the
> examples. I asked about it in my comments to the
> draft, don't know if I'll get a response.
> 
> Bob
> ________________________________________
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
> [dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Richard
> Noble [Richard_Noble at brown.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 8:35 AM
> To: DCRM Revision Group List
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Oops on digraphs
> 
> Since the default AACR/LCRI/ISBD(A)* standard for
> transcription is "facilities available", and since
> the "MARC 8 character set" is still the industry
> standard for facilities that you ought to have, I
> tried to follow that up myself. I gather that this
> phrase now should be understood to point us to ISO
> Z39.47-1993(R2003). Or maybe not--it's rather
> elusive for a non-techie.
> 
> Anyway, has there been any follow-up with LC
> regarding whatever changes in their treatment of
> ligatures/digraphs might have led to the deletion of
> the sentence? (Perhaps no changes, so that the
> sentence was deleted as superfluous?) I note that
> "ligatures" is still in the LCRI index, pointing to
> 1.0E, but I haven't located any use of it other than
> that one, now gone. There is indeed nothing specific
> to "ligatures" in AAACR2.
> 
> I wonder if this isn't simply a slough of
> uncertainty on the road from ASCIIville to
> Unicotopia...
> 
> RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY
> LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
> PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 :
> RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU
> 
> *Which reads, anent ligatures: "The spelling of
> words taken from the publication is preserved, but
> ligatures and other contemporary forms of letters
> and diacritics may be transcribed in their current
> forms when the contemporary form is not available to
> the cataloguing agency." (ISBD(A) 0.6)
> 
> At 12/20/2007    12:14 PM, Deborah Leslie wrote:
> 
> 
> As far as we can discover, AACR2 gives no guidance
> on digraphs. (One of us thought she had found an
> AACR2 instruction to separate all ligatures, but now
> cannot find it and wonders if she imagined it.)
> 
> The above excerpt is from a message I wrote to
> DCRM-L on 22 Feb. 2005, the first of a thread
> entitled ?Reconsidering digraphs.? I of course am
> the ?she? referred to and persist in my old tricks.
> 
> Richard Noble is right: we are now left with no
> AACR2 or LCRI guidance on what to do with digraphs. 
> For DCRM(B), we will use the rules there that
> correspond with the old LCRI. But for modern books?
> I want to tell my cataloger-in-training to separate
> an AE digraph in a Latin word, but on what grounds?
> 



 
________________________________________________________________________
____________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs