[DCRM-L] Clues for distinguishing between 16th- and 17th-century Portuguese vs. Spanish?

[Erin Blake]

I'm seeking advice from catalogers experienced with early Portuguese and
Spanish imprints....

Our OPAC has a large set of "preliminary records" where the language coding
is incorrect. These won't be shared outside our OPAC, and all have an Advisory
statement <https://folgerpedia.folger.edu/Advisory_statements> warning that
they're not to be trusted, so the stakes are very low.

We're looking for a way that non-experts can make the language coding
"reasonably okay".

Options include:

   1. Assume everything in an Iberian language is in Spanish if published
   in what's now modern Spain, and Portuguese if published in what's now
   modern Portugal.
   2. Use Google translate, even though it has a modern bias, in the hope
   that it's mostly okay for Spanish vs. Portuguese. [NB. this is how we
   discovered the problem in the first place: someone using Google Translate
   coded a whole bunch of 16th- and 17th-century Dutch as "Afrikaans".]
   3. Code them all "Undetermined language", even though they're already
   narrowed down to "almost certainly Spanish or Portuguese"?

Also, is it unreasonably dangerous to code anything Spanish-looking that
was published in the Spanish Netherlands (almost always Antwerp) as
"Spanish"?

Thanks for any advice you might have!

Erin.

______________________
Erin Blake, Ph.D.  |  Senior Cataloger  |  Folger Shakespeare Library  |
201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003  |  eblake at folger.edu  |
www.folger.edu
<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/-t5RCjRgpBtArRXC7R7_2?domain=urldefense.com>
  |  Pronouns: she/her/hers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20210302/61292235/attachment.htm>