But in both the roman and the nonroman field, and maybe ESPECIALLY in the nonroman field, we are supposed to be transcribing what we see within subfields demarcated by prescribed punctuation. There's no difference between roman and nonroman regarding either prescribed (required) punctuation or stylistic or grammatical punctuation (optional). --Joan
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 11:02 AM >>> I am not sure I understand the problem. I wouldn't change the practice that we do regarding the chronogram IN THE ROMANIZED FIELD. I would use the Geresh only for the 260 field in the Hebrew script. Yossi At 10:45 AM 7/19/2005, you wrote: Interesting argument, but the colon between the place of publication and the publisher's name is so-called "prescribed punctuation," required by the rules of International Standard Bibliographic Description to demarcate subfields. Slashes and periods and semicolons are prescribed punctuation too. These marks have nothing to do with punctuation we insert within a subfield for stylistic or grammatical reasons--except that it's because of them that we don't insert colons or semicolons that might be confused with prescribed colons or semicolons, for example, and why we change "three dots" on an item to "hyphen-hyphen-space"--because "three dots (i.e., marks of ellipsis)" are prescribed punctuation meaning that something has been omitted in the transcription. However, it's true that when AACR2 directs us to "transcribe" (as in the 245, the 260, the 4XX and elsewhere) we are allowed to modify the non-prescribed punctuation as we see fit. I'll just have to get my head around regarding the intrusion of geresh as supplying a mark of punctuation for well, stylistic or grammatical reasons ... perhaps I'll be able to do it. I wonder how the idea will go over with non-Hebrew specialists, though? Punctuation WITHIN a numeral will be kind of an odd idea to them ... is there an analogy with the comma in "1,000"? Joan >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 9:39 AM >>> Geresh is a punctuation mark, and don't we generally add punctuation marks to our records so that they can be better understood? In most cases, a colon generally does not appear on the item between the place of publication and the publisher's name, but we include it there in order to add context to the record's data. Adding this element to our transcription tells the user that what follows is the publisher's name. Similarly, adding a geresh (or other punctuation mark) after letters of a chronogram that are given typographical prominence on the item tells the user that those letters are to be read both as letters and as a numbers. Steven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joan C Biella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <heb-naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 2:29 PM Subject: re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s I'll let Lenore give a fuller answer, as she's the one who drafted the chronogram part of our draft, but for sure one problematic part of this issue is that we DON'T want to add elements to our transcription that are not actually on the item--such as gereshes or other markers. The ideal is to transcribe exactly what's there. Yet, in the case of chronograms in which not all characters are significant, an exact transcription is impossible with our current technology. (When we gain the ability to show differences in font size in our cataloging ... but I'm pretty sure I'll be retired by then.) As for notes identifying the source of the chronogram, I'm not sure what their bibliographic value would be. Furthermore, as a person lacking a good Jewish education, I can identify phrases from the Bible, but not from the Talmud, liturgy, etc., and I wonder if there are any others out there like me on whose plight we should take pity. Joan >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/18/05 11:18 AM >>> Why, in the case of chronograms, is it perferable to transcribe only the characters comprising the date? Why not transcribe the entire chronogram, marking the letters given typographical prominance on the source with a geresh or some other marker? 764 [2003 or 2004] **'**' *'*'*'*' **** Should a note be added that says something like "Date from chronogram of Ps. 92:12." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- PROPOSED NEW RULE A1.4E. Date. a) For published resources, transcribe the date in which the resource was published as it appears on the resource, usually only as year(s). i) If the date is not in Western-style Arabic numerals, transcribe the date as it appears on the resource in nonroman transcriptions. In the case of chronograms, transcribe only the characters comprising the date. In romanized transcriptions, transcribe the date according to the practice prescribed in the appropriate romanization table. ii) If the date is not of the Gregorian or Julian calendar, follow it with the equivalent year(s) of the Gregorian or Julian calendar in square brackets if needed for comprehensibility. Note: Such additions need not be included in nonroman transcriptions. Examples: Joan Biella & Lenore Bell rev. 7-15-05
