[DCRM-L] Diacritic transcription in DCRMR

[Jessica Janecki]

I agree Robert, it is so important to know what was actually printed on the piece!

I also feel that the easier to interpret one can make a rule, the better.  Case conversion is fraught enough, optionally inserted diacritics is really too much.

Jessica Janecki

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Robert O. Steele
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 10:06 AM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] Diacritic transcription in DCRMR

Hello,
I note with some surprise that the draft edition of DCRMR includes the option of adding diacritics where they are not present on the piece at hand. Granted, this is in the limited situation of converting from upper to lower case, but I think it introduces potential confusion for researchers trying to distinguish between states or issues… or even editions, in the case of anonymous and clandestine but oft-reprinted works, such as some French Revolutionary pamphlets.
I have attached the detailed response I posted as feedback on the Public Review of DCRMR site. Please feel free to comment.
The main points: 1) Since the rule is optional, I will not know which rule you are applying, so I will not know if what you saw is really different from what I see on the piece in hand. 2) The rule only applies to case conversion, so in French EDITION can be édition, but not Édition. Why? 3) The “pattern of the text” in early modern spelling can be difficult to discern without some advanced knowledge, so I suspect anyone applying the rule will merely add diacritics where they would be expected in modern usage, which in my opinion is the equivalent of correcting spelling rather than using [sic].
Thanks for any feedback you might have.
Robert O. Steele
Cataloging Librarian
Jacob Burns Law Library
George Washington University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20211209/c7af231e/attachment-0001.htm>