[DCRM-L] FW: gatherings signed in -- DRAFT Does this get to what we want?

[Matthew C. Haugen]

Agreeing with what's been said already. Since signatures are recorded in a
compressed formula according to established conventions rather than being
transcribed information, I'm fine with converting Cyrillic, Greek, Hebrew
numeric sequences to Arabic numerals as one of those conventions, as long
as the note differentiates between numeric and alphabetic sequences when
indicating the original script. So if we retain the DCRM(B) example at
7B9.7 I would change it to say Signatures (in Hebrew numerals), instead of
characters; and  also "Signatures (in Greek alphabet): when it is an
alphabetic sequence. "Characters" might be reserved for those cases where
there is doubt about whether it is a numeric or alphabetic sequence.

I also would like to see the new PS instruction provide for indicating the
direction of signing when applicable for right-to-left languages when
applicable and important for clarity.

Matt

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
wrote:

> Thanks, Joe, Michelle, and Liz. The section on non-roman signatures was
> new in DCRM(B), and those working on it developed the instructions from
> scratch. I had cataloged modern books in Russian and maybe a dozen old
> books in Church Slavic when I was at Yale; Joe is an experienced Russian
> cataloger; and we consulted Daniel Rettberg, a Hebrew cataloger. Between
> us, we *may* have known of a few examples of non-roman books signed
> alphabetically, but it was clear that numerical sequences rather than
> alphabetic sequences were the traditional norm.
>
>
>
> As Liz explains, numbers are created using alphabetic characters, but they
> are nevertheless numbers. I found one of my old records:
> http://hdl.handle.net/10079/bibid/4111579. I didn't record any
> signatures—probably because no instructions existed at the time—but the
> publication date and foliation are expressed in the traditional way. My
> note reads "Imprint date and foliation expressed in Church Slavic
> characters," although there might be better ways of wording it.
>
>
>
> One consequence of accommodating nonroman signatures is that we had to
> make adjustments to Bowers/Tanselle. It would be incorrect and misleading
> in library cataloging to record unsigned preliminaries as π, even if we had
> the typographical facilities: in DCRM(B), the use of π in the formula means
> that the gathering is signed with the Greek character π.
>
>
>
> I don't have experience with right-to-left languages, and went back and
> forth on how to include right-to-left sequences embedded in left-to-right
> text. I think we should accept the conventions—or the advice, if there
> aren't conventions—of catalogers experienced in those languages. I do
> regret that we made the table in 7B9.10 read left-to-right. I remember that
> there was discussion about it, also that I had a lot of trouble formatting
> that table. It was a long time ago, but I have a vague memory of being up
> very late at night, trying to reformat the table right-to-left, but somehow
> messing things up and losing work. It could be as simple a reason as that I
> ran out of time in 2007, and we didn't think to revisit it for the 2011
> revision.
>
>
>
>
>
> Deborah J. Leslie | Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu |
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] *On Behalf Of *Mascaro,
> Michelle
> *Sent:* Thursday, 24 May, 2018 17:59
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group
> *Cc:* Miraglia, Elizabeth
>
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] FW: gatherings signed in -- DRAFT Does this get
> to what we want?
>
>
>
> To further the discussion…I asked my UC San Diego colleague Liz Miraglia,
> who has experience cataloging Hebrew, for her opinion on the questions
> posed by the Examples Team (see below).   I would welcome any additional
> comments regarding recording nonroman signatures.  The task force that
> wrote the draft RBMS PS did not make any changes from DCRM(B) 7B9 in
> regards to how signatures are recorded.
>
>
>
> Liz Miraglia, Head of Books and Serials Metadata and Assistant Program
> Director of Metadata Services, UC San Diego Library:
>
>
>
> I think a large part of the instructions and resulting confusion come from
> the fact that with Hebrew and several other languages the numbers are
> actually just letters that have been assigned a numerical value and so for
> Hebrew, until you get past 10 signatures, there’d be no way to tell from
> the transcription whether the sequence is alphabetical or numerical. The
> note in the email below is a good example of where this gets confusing: the
> cataloger has noted that the signatures are in "Hebrew characters" and
> "Arabic numerals," but based on the way the characters are recorded in the
> note, they're actually Hebrew numerals ("yod-bet" is not a letter). Lastly,
> the DCRM also indicates that if it’s unclear whether a sequence is
> alphabetical or numerical to treat it as numerical, which also reinforces
> the idea that many Hebrew sequences would go un-transliterated.
>
>
>
> The record from which that note comes is also not RDA or DCRM and there’s
> precedent for writing the name of the non-Latin character in brackets when
> it stands alone (I’m looking at LC-PCC PS 1.4, “Greek and Other Non-Latin
> Script Letters, Ideographs, etc.”), and that’s probably why there are the
> names of the characters/numbers instead of an actual transcription of any
> kind.
>
>
>
> I'd fully support transcribing/transliterating in the original language
> where possible, but the instructions need to be clear about how notes are
> structured so that people don’t use phrases like “Hebrew characters” when
> they mean “Hebrew numbers” and such, and there are going to be cases where
> it really is unclear/impossible to know. Just as a finicky thing, it
> bothers me that in the example in 7B9.10 with Hebrew letters that it reads "
> ש-א" since Hebrew reads right-to-left and this is basically the same as
> saying that the signatures go from S-A. So if there's a large overhaul of
> transcribing non-Latin signature notes, it might be worth asking whether
> they should be recorded in compliance with the reading order of the
> language in which they appear or in the reading order of the language of
> cataloging.
>
>
>
>
>
> Michelle Mascaro
>
> Head, Special Collections Metadata
>
> University of California, San Diego
>
> (858) 534-6759
>
> mmascaro at ucsd.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu
> <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Joseph Ross
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:59 AM
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] FW: gatherings signed in -- DRAFT Does this get
> to what we want?
>
>
>
> Ellen,
>
>
>
> The reason for recording Hebrew and Greek and Cyrillic numerals by Arabic
> numerals but indicating that they are given in Hebrew or Greek numerals is
> that it is not always obvious that this is a numeric signature rather than
> an alphabetic one, especially if it is a small book with less than 11
> quires.  And that would thus change the understanding of the structure of
> the work.  I don't see a problem with recording the vernacular numerals as
> long as one does make clear that they are numerals and not alphabetic
> characters.
>
>
>
> Most of the early Hebrew and Cyrillic signatures are numeric rather than
> alphabetic even after the invention of printing.
>
>
>
> I hope I am clear.  Please let me know if you have additional questions or
> further clarification.
>
>
>
> Joseph Ross
>
> Rare Book Cataloger
>
> University of Notre Dame
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Cordes, Ellen <ellen.cordes at yale.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Dear DCRM(B) catalogers,
>
> We who are not knowledgeable about Hebrew are asking for your help. What
> has been your understanding/practice in applying, briefly summarized for
> quick reference,
>
> 1)  DCRM(B) 7B9.6. Concurrent signatures, provide both sets of signatures
> in a note.
> 2)  DCRM(B) 7B9.7. Nonroman signatures (numeric sequence), represent the
> characters using Arabic numeration. Note parallel numeration using another
> script.
> 3)  DCRM(B) 7B9.8. Nonroman signatures (alphabetic sequence), transcribe
> in original script (if possible) or in Romanized form.
> 4)  DCRM(B) 7B9.9-10. Use Greek or Hebrew  alphabetic signatures, use the
> 24-letter (Greek) or 22-letter alphabet (Hebrew),  transcribe in original
> script (if possible) or in Romanized form.
> 5) DCRM(B) 7B9.9-11. Other nonroman alphabetic signatures, do not assume
> standard signing pattern; give first and last characters in each sequence,
> followed by total count.
>
> DCRM(B) tells us if nonroman characters are accompanied by parallel
> numeration, just note it.
> Example from DCRMB 7B9.7: Signatures (in parallel Hebrew and Arabic
> numerals): pi ⁸ 1-4 ⁸
>
> And yet, we find examples such as:  Signatures in Hebrew characters and
> Arabic numerals: 1[alef]-12[yod-bet]⁶ (1[alef]₂ verso blank, 12[yod-bet]₆
> verso blank)
>
> Why are we not recording both sequences when there are parallel instances?
> And second, why are we instructed in most cases to transcribe in original
> script EXCEPT in the case of nonroman numeric sequences?  Would we not want
> to record original script in all cases or transliterate?
>
>
> RDA Examples Group
>
>
>



-- 

-- 
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger
102 Butler Library
Columbia University Libraries
E-mail: matthew.haugen at columbia.edu
Phone: 212-851-2451
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20180525/727c31d2/attachment-0001.html>