Note that RDA 0.11.2 has general information about language and script. Judy Kuhagen JSC Secretary
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Heidrun Wiesenmüller < wiesenmuel...@hdm-stuttgart.de> wrote: > 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 > > > > >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, Germanywww.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi > >
