[DCRM-L] Asterism

[Robert Maxwell]

I have to agree with Richard. This evidently useful term appears to be news to the experienced rare materials catalogers here, including, perhaps, even you, Deborah (at least I got that impression from your first message)-if none of us had ever heard of it before this dcrm-l exchange, how can we expect users of the catalog to know what we are talking about?

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian
Genre/Form Authorities Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 10:25 AM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Asterism

Yes, Ron Bogdan points out that it frequently turns out as the third part of a sequence, in which it makes sense to call it 3*. But if it appears independently, I will use "[asterism]".

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Monday, 31 October 2011 12:02
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Asterism

Because even though it may be in a standard dictionary, "asterism" is not a "standard" word, but a rather esoteric printer's term--as esoteric as it is when used to mean "a small group of stars" or "the optical phenomenon of a star-shaped figure exhibited by some crystals by reflected light (as in a star sapphire) or by transmitted light (as in some mica)" (Webster3). It's even more esoteric than, say,  "fist", because it's not one's most immediate thought that there must be "a word" for the constellations   *** , ***.

In a collational formula it would be inappropriate to write "[asterism]4", especially because it's most likely to turn up in a sequence of multiple-asterisk signatures, *-3*, or whatever; and, in nay case, one disregards such typographic details in the formula proper. In an explanatory note one might use the term for the sake of compact phrasing, e.g. "in edition A signature 3* is an upright asterism, in edition B an inverted one". But I'd still define the term, because I simply cannot expect even a reasonably sophisticated online catalog user to understand what the heck I'm talking about, or to have a lot of interest in looking up a word right at that moment. In a formal bibliography concerning a body of books in which asterisms turn up with some frequency, I might indeed use the word without explanation, though I'd probably define it in a, introductory note on my descriptive conventions.

Mind you, I still like the word, and am delighted to have had it brought to our attention. And of course, we could take it as an inspiration to asterize all sorts of things (asterizein: Gr., to arrange in constellations).

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-3384 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu<mailto:DJLeslie at folger.edu>> wrote:
Oh no, it was serious. I like using a single word that exactly describes character in a signature statement or in a note, and think your workarounds are less descriptive and less elegant. Why would you feel constrained to explain a standard dictionary word?

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] On Behalf Of Noble, Richard
Sent: Sunday, 30 October, 2011 21:19
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Asterism

If I were referring to such a phenomenon in a non-collation note I'd feel constrained to explain it: "asterism (i.e. 3 asterisks in a pyramid)". What of an inverted pyramid (much more common)? And in a collational formula I'd write "3*", and describe the arrangement in a further note, if the exact form needed specifying for some reason. What about six asterisks in a pyramid?

Or is this a thickly pedantic response to a slightly tongue-in-cheek suggestion (for which I get maybe the lower half of a star for taking the bait, but no more than that)?

It's a wonderful word, nevertheless.

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187<tel:401-863-1187>/FAX 863-3384 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU<mailto:RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu<mailto:DJLeslie at folger.edu>> wrote:
This is going around on facebook just now: there's a name for the pyramid of three asterisks: asterism.  We can use it in signature statements instead of trying to describe it, a la "[three asterisks in a pyramid]" .

http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/13-punctuation-marks-that-you-never-knew-existed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterism_%28typography%29

Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | 202.675-0369<tel:202.675-0369> | www.folger.edu<http://www.folger.edu>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20111031/9add3db2/attachment-0001.htm