[DCRM-L] Lemniscate

[Stephen A Skuce]

I'm not prepared to give an exhaustive defense for it, but I'd like to keep bracketed terms such as "[lemniscate]" out of the description proper and relegate them to the notes area wherever possible.

The publication, distribution, etc. area, where we'll usually see this, already tends toward complexity because it contains at least 3 distinct but very important elements.  Because of the area's importance and the nature of the information it contains, we already incorporate, in brackets, a fair amount of additional information in order to clarify, amplify, and disambiguate.  

But where possible, I think we should restrain the urge to fit every bit of explanatory information that could pertain to this area, into the area itself. 

While note proliferation can also be a problem, this strikes me as a situation in which the 260 should contain the letter that the lemniscate is meant to convey. We should then require a note explaining the actual symbol used.

It's very easy for me to imagine even a reasonably sophisticated catalog user being tripped up by [lemniscate]DLXVII [1567].   Why force large numbers of users to stop and wonder about a term they may not know, at this point in the description? 

Those users (including other catalogers) for whom specific letter forms and symbols are of importance will (or had better) read the rest of the description, including notes.

Stephen


________________________________________
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Erin Blake [EBlake at FOLGER.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 11:28 AM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Lemniscate

Turns out Ellen Cordes' question about lemniscate (mathematical symbol for infinity that looks like a sideways 8) used instead of "M" in Roman numeral dates needs more discussion. There's agreement that it should be added to the chart in G2, but not about how to transcribe it.

For background on lemniscate as "M", go to http://www2.inetdirect.net/~charta/Roman_numerals.html and scroll down to "Use of the Apostrophus."

Should a lemniscate be transcribed as "M" or as "[lemniscate]"?

Because DCRM calls for transcribing CI[backwards C] as "M", and a lemniscate is another way to represent the shape of CI[backwards C], I assumed it would be transcribed "M" (and you could make a note that a lemniscate is used). [Note: an explanation for transcribing CI[backwards C] as M can be found in the DCRM-L archives at https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/2006-January/000980.html  where Deborah J. Leslie writes "there there is an historical relationship between the apostrophic and modern forms of M (CI-backwards C) and D (I-backwards C). This provides us with strong support in the decision to transcribe apostrophic Roman numerals in their modern Roman equivalents."]

However, it could also be a case of "replace symbols or other matter that cannot be reproduced using available typographical facilities with a cataloger's description in square brackets" so the date field would read, for example, "[lemniscate]DLXVII [1567]"

Your input is needed!

Thanks,

   EB.

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:44 AM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Lemniscate

It is no more obscure than some of the Latin symbols. Add it.

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Manon Theroux
Sent: Tuesday, 08 February, 2011 10:59
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Lemniscate

Hi Erin,

I don't recall it ever coming up in discussions, so I think it wasn't
a deliberate omission.

I'd vote for adding it to the chart!

Manon

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Cordes, Ellen <ellen.cordes at yale.edu> wrote:
> DCRM(B-S) editors and others,
>
>
>
> I ran across a couple of prints published in Rome in the 16th century that
> used the lemniscate in place of the M to represent 1000 in the date.
> [Printers who used this convention used the number 8 sideways, apparently,
> though I have never actually seen it.]   It seems like something that (B) or
> (S) would have included in the chart in G2, but did not.  The question came
> up in the context of reviewing the chart in G2 for DCRM(G).
>
>
>
> There's an interesting brief description of the use of lemniscates at
> http://www2.inetdirect.net/~charta/Roman_numerals.html
>
>
>
> Was this too obscure to include in G2 in the (B) and (S) modules?
>
>
>
> Ellen R. Cordes
>
> Head of Technical Services
>
> The Lewis Walpole Library
>
> Yale University
> P.O. Box 1408
> Farmington, CT 06034
>
>
>
> Street Address (for FedEx, UPS, etc.):
>
>
>
> 154 Main Street
>
> Farmington, CT 06032
>
>
>
> Telephone: 860 677-2140
>
> Fax: 860 677-6369
>
>