I'm not quite sure if I'm talking about exactly the same issue, but this is something that is worrying me:
(Also, I do apologise to be mentioning a MARC subfield, which I don't think purists like, but it's useful shorthand; also not to give the RDA rule number, but I don't have access to the Toolkit, but I'm sure readers will know what I mean) Assume I am cataloguing a record for a non-English language resource (in this case Finnish, but assume any language) but I am working for a library that wants records with English as language of cataloguing, ie value 040$b eng If I am creating a 245$c and I want to make use of the option that allows abbreviation to "and twelve others" what is the appropriate way of expressing that? [and twelve others] ? [ja kaksitoista muuta] ? The first must stick out like a sore thumb, and I wouldn't countenance it in the case of value 040$b fin, but I just don't know how to reconcile it with RDA 1.4. Paul Davey daveyp...@tiscali.co.uk >In RDA 1.4, we read: "When recording an element listed above as a >supplied element, record the supplied element in the most appropriate >language and script." (The elements listed are those that are normally >transcribed more or less exactly in the bibliographic description.) >Now I was wondering what might be a good policy for the "most >appropriate language". The LC-PCC PS for 1.4 doesn't comment on this >point, although I think there can easily be different opinions as to >what is "most appropriate". >For instance, according to AACR2 (1.4C6.), the probable place of >publication, distribution etc. is to be given "in the English form of >name if there is one", whereas the German RAK rules (§ 144,3) call for >giving such a place "if possible, in its original language form". So, >you'd have to use "Florence" according to AACR2, but "Firenze" according >to RAK. >The example given in AACR2 1.4C6. is "[Munich?]", and this example is >still there in RDA 2.8.2.6.2. But taking into account that RDA examples >are not prescriptive, but illustrative only, I think that RDA 1.4 would >also make it possible to write "[München?]", if one believes the >original language form to be the most appropriate. >Heidrun
