Paul,
RDA is actually quite clear on this matter. In this case (unlike the one
I was talking about), it's not a complete element which is supplied, but
only a part of it.
The basic rule for this can also be found in 1.4 (Language and script):
"When adding data within an element listed above, record the added data
in the language and script of the other data in the element unless the
instructions for a specific element indicate otherwise." So, ordinarily
it should be the same language as the rest of the element, but note the
exception in the last part of the sentence.
There is indeed a specific instruction for your case in 2.4.1.5
(Statement naming more than one person, etc.):
"Optional Omission:
If a single statement of responsibility names more than three persons,
families, or corporate bodies performing the same function, or with the
same degree of responsibility, omit all but the first of each group of
such persons, families, or bodies. Indicate the omission by summarizing
what has been omitted in the language and script preferred by the agency
preparing the description. Indicate that the summary was taken from a
source outside the resource itself as instructed under 2.2.4."
So, if the library in question has decided to use English as its
preferred language, than the "[and twelve others]" or such also has to
be in English. My personal explanation for this is that the "[and twelve
others]" is seen rather as something like a note (which traditionally is
recorded in the language of the agency), and not as a different way of
transcribing the statement of responsibility.
I'm not really happy with this language mixture myself. And it doesn't
really fit in with a rule like 1.7.5 (Symbols): "Replace symbols and
other characters, etc., that cannot be reproduced by the facilities
available with a description of the symbol enclosed in square brackets."
Here, there is no specific instruction, so according to the rules you
must describe the symbol in the language of the resource, although this
will certainly often be difficult for catalogers.
Maybe there should at least be an option in 2.4.1.5 to use the language
of the resource instead of the language of the agency.
Heidrun
On 25.03.2013 13:30, Paul Davey wrote:
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 <mailto: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
--
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Faculty of Information and Communication
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
