[DCRM-L] Help for example in DCRMB4 4a3.3

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Dear rare materials catalogers,

Kim Taylor and I have finished going through the errata listed on the DCRM editorial guidelines wiki<http://dcrmedits.pbworks.com/w/page/69461273/DCRM%20Editorial%20Guidelines%20and%20Errata> and are getting to outstanding issues not included in the wiki. [Please note that this is unrelated to the work of the DCRM-RDA Editorial work, which is revising DCRM to make it RDA-compliant.]

One of them is change to usage of "brevigraph" from "contractions used in continuance of the manuscript era" introduced by DCRMG.

DCRMB3 4A3.3. If the elements are not grammatically separable, or their transposition would result in an ambiguous or otherwise confusing construction, transcribe them in the order found  and supply missing elements and expanded brevigraphs in square brackets as needed (see 0G6 and 0G8.2).

[London] : Emprynted the yere of oure Lorde a. MCCCCC & xiij by Richard Pynson, prynter vnto the Kyng[es] Noble Grace, [1513]

(Comment: The date of publication has not been transposed because it is not a grammatically separable element)




DCRMG 4A3.3. If the elements are not visually or grammatically separable, or their transposition would result in an ambiguous or otherwise confusing construction, transcribe them in the order found and supply missing elements in square brackets as needed (see 0G6).

[London] : Engrav'd from the originals printed in Paris & sold in London by H. Overton & J. Hoole at [the] White-horse without Newgate, [ca. 1726]
(Comment: The place of publication has not been transposed because it is not a
grammatically separable element; “[the]” replaces the brevigraph “yӵ” on the material)

G appropriately changed the example for their format, and added an additional comment about the expanded brevigraph. At first I wondered whether this was a good idea—the rule is about enmeshed publication statements, not square brackets—but then thought that it probably was a good idea since the square brackets around the expanded brevigraph is likely to cause confusion.

What do others think? Do you think this is a better comment?

[London] : Emprynted the yere of oure Lorde a. MCCCCC & xiij by Richard Pynson, prynter vnto the Kyng[es] Noble Grace, [1513]
(Comment: The date of publication has not been transposed because it is not a grammatically separable element;  “[es]” replaces the brevigraph [insert brevigraph graphic] on the material)



Another issue has to do with capitalization of Kynges Noble Grace. From the dcrmedits wiki:

4A3.3.
(B3, M) Correct capitalization from "kyng[es] noble grace" to "Kyng[es] Noble Grace," according to AACR2 A.13E.1 A.13G  (C n/a)(MSS n/a)(B4)
Review for capitalization. Acc. to Chicago, although 'king' and other such titles are now lower case when used alone (8.23, 8.32: e.g. the king of Jordan), honorific titles including personal pronouns  are still upper case (8.23, 5.40: e.g. Queen Elizabeth, Her Majesty the Queen of England). the Kynges Noble Grace is therefore upper case. Q: add additional comment to 4A3.3 about capitalization?




Deborah J. Leslie, MA, MLS (she/her) | Senior Cataloger, Folger Shakespeare Library | djleslie at folger.edu | 201 East Capitol Street, S.E. | Washington, DC 20003 | 202.675-0369 | orcid.org 0000-0001-5848-5467

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20190907/0749d5d0/attachment-0001.html>