[DCRM-L] Clarification of leaves and pages (6JSC/LC/21 Clarification of leaves and pages

[Ted P Gemberling]

See an addition I made below.
Ted

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 11:31 AM
To: 'DCRM Revision Group List'
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Clarification of leaves and pages (6JSC/LC/21 Clarification of leaves and pages

It seems this whole argument misses an obvious fact. One side of the argument wants the decisive issue to be whether pages are printed on just one side; the other, whether there are numbers on both sides. But obviously, given that a leaf is two pages, it's possible for a book with leaves printed on both sides to have numbers on one side only. In that case, a book of 48 leaf numbers is also a book of 96 pages.  So the sensible thing to do is this:

48 leaves [i.e., 96 p.]

It might also be possible for a book with leaves printed on both sides to have numbers on just one side that represent the pages. In other words, after the leaf numbered on the recto "42," the next leaf is numbered on the recto "44." In that case, you would say "96 p." even though there are numbers on just one side. I can't say I've ever seen that, but I think it's possible.

Addition:
I suppose if it was printed on just one side, YOU WOULD TRANSCRIBE:

96 p. [i.e. 48 leaves]
 And add a clarifying note: "Leaves are printed on one side only."

Neither criterion makes good sense. If we can put bracketed clarifications after the number of leaves, there is no good reason to adopt either.

Ted Gemberling
UAB Lister Hill Library
(205)934-2461


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20120817/33fad829/attachment.htm>