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

[Erin Blake]

I wouldn't add a note about capitalization -- unlike expansions in square
brackets, there's no mention of capitalization in the instruction, so it
would seem to come out of nowhere.



As for mentioning the brevigraph, I don't think it's necessary for B,
because the expansion is within the word, not an entire word. That being
said, I don't think it would be a problem to add the note.



Background for people who didn't witness it: DCRM(G) globally added the
note "“[the]” replaces the brevigraph “yͤ” on the material" each time
"[the]" appears because it's very common in handpress era prints, and the
community is accustomed to using "[th]e" or "ye" when transcribing it, so
the people test-driving the manual kept thinking a missing word had been
supplied by the cataloger.



In retrospect, I wish the Chief Editor of DCRM(G) [who happens to have been
me] hadn't given up the fight on that one. Using [the] and [that] instead
of [th]e and [tha]t when there's a thorn with an "e" or a "t" on top of it
continues to confuse .



The same thing came up when writing DCRM(MSS), but the published text gets
around the issue by omitting Appendix G, and by avoiding examples with a
thorn.


Erin.

----------------
Erin Blake, PhD  |  pronouns: she/her/hers  |  Senior Cataloger  |  Folger
Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003  |
eblake at folger.edu  |  www.folger.edu



On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 12:24 PM Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
wrote:

> 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/20190907/311a7074/attachment.html>