[DCRM-L] Title or edition?

Thu May 7 13:11:37 MDT 2015

Doh!

Kate's quite right, I think. I was so focused on the matter of what relates
to the edition that I didn't note the grammatical inseparability of
genitive title/nominative edition. The intervening period is a graphic but
not a grammatical feature, and should have no effect on the perfectly clear
syntax.

Though there's no exactly corresponding example, Kate's transcription is
surely in the spirit of 2B6. Put it into English, in idiomatic order with a
corresponding silly period, and there's no doubt: "The latest edition. Of
Adolphus Brachelius's history of our times ...".

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Kate Moriarty <moriarks at slu.edu> wrote:

> Question: Does the title need the nominative to make sense, in which case
> "editio ultima" would go in the title proper regardless and everything else
> accompanies it as other title information? Though OCLC does have several
> records without the nominative in the title proper and uniform title ...
>
> If so, the period after "temporis" might have to be ignored or changed to
> a comma as in OCLC 319721001 (not an ISBD record).
>
> Is this a MARC possibility?
>
> 245 10 $a Adolphi Brachelii historiarum nostri temporis editio ultima : $b
> in duas partes divisa : prioribus multo emendatior, & continuata in annum
> 1654. diversis variorium principum & virorum illustrium figuris exornata :
> adjuncti in fine articulis pacis inter Anglos & Belgas, cum iconibus
> praecipuorum maris praefectorum.
>
> I'll be coming across this kind of thing now and then so thank you for any
> feedback. And thank you, Mark, for posting this.
>
> -Kate
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Mark Seidl <marseidl at vassar.edu> wrote:
>
>> Thank you both!
>>
>> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Noble, Richard <richard_noble at brown.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To add to Deborah's note: If earlier editions were divided, then that's
>>> part of the general title. The rest, however, is probably specific to the
>>> edition, though again this may require comparison with earlier editions.
>>>
>>> Real Latinists invited to make a fool of me, but this is the gist:
>>>
>>> Much improved from prior editions, and continued to the year 1654,
>>> adorned with diverse portraits of various princes and illustrious men. With
>>> the addition at the end of the terms of peace between the English and the
>>> Dutch, with portraits of the most distinguished naval commanders.
>>>
>>> RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
>>> BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
>>> <Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  The most reliable way to figure this out is to track down the first
>>>> edition. If the first edition is divided in two parts (whether it states it
>>>> explicitly or not), then it's part of the title. If the division was
>>>> introduced in a later edition (which seems pretty unlikely), then it's part
>>>> of the edition statement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu |
>>>> 202.675-0369 | 201 East Capitol St., SE, Washington, DC 20003 | www.
>>>> folger.edu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On
>>>> Behalf Of *Mark Seidl
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 06 May 2015 11:20
>>>> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
>>>> *Subject:* [DCRM-L] Title or edition?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Group,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm working on a record for a book, a picture of the title page of
>>>> which is attached. I remember my undergraduate Latin well enough get the
>>>> gist of the information, but what I can't quite fully parse is the
>>>> relationship of the edition statement to what follows. In other words, is
>>>> what comes after "Editio ultima" part of the edition statement, in which
>>>> case a lot would appear in the 250; or is what follows "Editio ultima"
>>>> really part of the title, in which case it would appear in the 245 (with an
>>>> appropriate note about transposition)?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW, there are a few records for this title in OCLC, but none of them
>>>> look quite right to me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your help!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All best,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mark Seidl
>>>> Technical Services Librarian for Special Collections
>>>> Vassar College Libraries
>>>> http://specialcollections.vassar.edu/
>>>> Gargoyle Bulletin <http://pages.vassar.edu/library>
>>>> http://pages.vassar.edu/library/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Mark Seidl
>> Technical Services Librarian for Special Collections
>> Vassar College Libraries
>> http://specialcollections.vassar.edu/
>> Gargoyle Bulletin <http://pages.vassar.edu/library>
>> http://pages.vassar.edu/library/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Kate S. Moriarty, MSW, MLS  |  Rare Book Catalog Librarian  |  Associate
> Professor  |  Pius XII Memorial Library  |  Room 320-2
> Saint Louis University  |  3650 Lindell Blvd . |  St. Louis, MO 63108  |  (314)
> 977-3024 (tel)  |  (314) 977-3108 (fax)  |  moriarks at slu.edu  |
> http://libraries.slu.edu/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20150507/120ff979/attachment.html>