[DCRM-L] Question on DCRM(B) 4B4 supplying fuller place names.

[Lenore Rouse]

Supplied fuller forms of place names (4B4)

When supplying the fuller form of an abbreviated Latin place name, 
should the cataloger supply the nominative case or extrapolate to the 
genitive case which was what printers generally used? This question 
derives from a 1714 book published in "Norimb." I.e. modern Nuremberg. A 
previous cataloger supplied Norimb[ergae] which raises 2 questions.

1. This is the genitive (which is the way most -- but not all -- 
printers represented the place). My gut reaction is that it is requiring 
too much of most catalogers to construct the genitive form of the place 
of publication, that doing so would be reading (unfaithfully?) into the 
piece, and that such a practice could also hamper catalog users. Maybe 
this question came up during B editing but the instruction in 4B4 
doesn't say exactly WHAT form the fuller form should take in such 
variable situations.

2. Also the 4B4 examples of supplied fuller forms of place do not insert 
brackets within a word the way examples in GM do -- eg. Phila[delphia]. 
I have vague recollections that this was discussed somewhere long ago, 
and that the brackets in Phila[delphia] or Norimb[ergae] will defeat a 
keyword search and hence such constructions are no longer recommended. 
Is this correct? This item is not retrievable by place of publication in 
my system unless the searcher knows where to insert brackets in 
Norimb[ergae], but would Rio [de Janeiro] as suggested in 4B4 not cause 
a similar problem? Appreciate any clarification on these.

Thanks,

Lenore



-- 
Lenore M. Rouse
Curator, Rare Books&  Special Collections
The Catholic University of America
Room 214, Mullen Library
620 Michigan Avenue N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20064

PHONE: 202 319-5090
E-MAIL: rouse at cua.edu


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20110117/97156399/attachment.htm