re: Chronograms in Latin Found (was: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
-- Joan, a) I did an advanced search in Google "Christian Hebraists" and chronogram and retrieve (3 items), among them this one http://www.smitskamp.nl/650-RAR.HTM Rare Books & Manuscripts January 2005 LURIA, SOLOMON BEN JEHIEL. Hokhmat Shelomo. * Vienna, gedruckt bei Georg Hraschanzky, K. K. privilegierten Buchdrucker im Alten Kienmarkt, Nro. 529, 1812. The title-page bears a Hebrew chronogram in Latin characters: Marschal (40+1+600+1+30). Friedberg H 739; EJ XI 580-82. Collation: *11-432441. [For more information or to order #39255] 2) On LC catalog, I did a keyword search for chronogram anywhere and limited it by language Latin and got four results: lccn 13018884 (Magnetis reductorium theologicum tropologicum), has a 500 note with "Imprint date also appears as a chronogram in the subtitle" [LC catalog, does not appear in Rlin...] lccn 93184045 (Idea fiscalis, seu, Assertiones de jure et privilegiis fisci) 500 note The year in which the academic exercise was held (1675) appears on t.p. in the form of a chronogram; the month and exact day are represented by blank spaces. [LC cat.; two other examples of similar formulation lccn: 93173061, 93186594] 500 note Date of publication derived from chronogram: Magno partV DIVes aVstrIa feLICItabItVr [Rlin] 3) Same search limiting to language = Yiddish yielded no results. Hope this helps, - r. >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 3:45 PM >>> Do we know of any roman script books that contain chronograms? Do we know of them in any language other than Hebrew? Are there any Yiddish chronograms? Joan >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 2:38 PM >>> I haven't been following this discussion that closely, but what is generally done in roman script books that contain chronograms? I would expect something like, in the 260, having the chronogram transcribed with the derived date in brackets, with a 5xx describing the chronogram and how the date was derived. -Stanley Nachamie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
I don't know much about Roman script cataloging and especially older books (I may ask my wife, she has more experience with those old rare books), and I don't remember seeing chronograms in Yiddish books (although, books might be in Yiddish, but the title page would be in Hebrew, especially if we are dealing with Rabbinical literature) Yossi At 03:45 PM 7/19/2005, you wrote: Do we know of any roman script books that contain chronograms? Do we know of them in any language other than Hebrew? Are there any Yiddish chronograms? Joan >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 2:38 PM >>> I haven't been following this discussion that closely, but what is generally done in roman script books that contain chronograms? I would expect something like, in the 260, having the chronogram transcribed with the derived date in brackets, with a 5xx describing the chronogram and how the date was derived. -Stanley Nachamie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: avgi, etc--Romanization q
This author has been established (nr2005009039) as "Ibgi, Haviv" (by me, I did it). I chose "Ibgi" instead of "Ivgi" because of Moshe Ibgui (nr2005009039), whose name appears in a nonstandard romanization. I'll add a reference from "Ivgi." --Joan >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 3:21 PM >>> Folks: I've got a book the author of which has one of those very special last names that might require a provisional status. the name: .Haviv [alef-yud-bet-gimel-yud]. yes, it looks like ivgi, but it could also be ibgi, ebgi, or evgi. i think the form two are better guesses than the latter pair, but what do i know? please, i was wondering if one of you out there might be kind enough to perhaps check an israeli phone book for me. the author has kindly stamped his address (and a conflicting version of his name that inverts the word order, which is to say [alef-yud-bet-gimel-yud] .Haviv.) on the front page. He lives in Mi.kod (or Mi.kud [mem-yud-kuf-vav-dalet]; I've never heard of the place, it's in none of the books, and my geographical knowledge of israel can be summed up nicely in the phrase, "doodley-squat"). many thanks in advance. b
re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
Do we know of any roman script books that contain chronograms? Do we know of them in any language other than Hebrew? Are there any Yiddish chronograms? Joan >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 2:38 PM >>> I haven't been following this discussion that closely, but what is generally done in roman script books that contain chronograms? I would expect something like, in the 260, having the chronogram transcribed with the derived date in brackets, with a 5xx describing the chronogram and how the date was derived. -Stanley Nachamie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
The option of recording the source of a chronogram could be considered a local
practice. Transcribing the whole chronogram in a note seems more important to
me, but (IMHO!) I think a description of such a practice belongs in HCM, not in
RDA.
Joan
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 2:56 PM >>>
IMHO, I do not think that *identifying* the source of the chronogram is
bibliographically significant, and would advise against incorprating this idea
into the rules, even on an optional basis.
My understanding is that we should be thinking in terms of recommendations that
make the rules easier to apply, more logical, and more universally applicable,
rather than those that add new layers of complexity.
Lenore
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 12:07 PM >>>
I like this idea! And I'm quite willing to transcribe the whole chronogram in
a note--my only question is whether the SOURCE of the chronogram ("Ps. 92:12"
or the like)--not the CONTENT of the chronogram, whether or not it refers to
the content of the item or the author's name-- is bibliographically important
enough to be required. If we say recording the source is optional, I have no
objection.
Joan
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 11:52 AM >>>
For complex chronograms in which only selected letters comprise the date, just
supply a bracketed Hebrew date. The entire chronogram could then be
transcribed (optionally) in a note.
Lenore
Re: avgi, etc--Romanization q
thanks yossi. b At 03:28 PM 7/19/2005 -0400, you wrote: and Mikud is not a place name but the Hebrew word for ZIP-Code ... At 03:21 PM 7/19/2005, you wrote: Folks: I've got a book the author of which has one of those very special last names that might require a provisional status. the name: .Haviv [alef-yud-bet-gimel-yud]. yes, it looks like ivgi, but it could also be ibgi, ebgi, or evgi. i think the form two are better guesses than the latter pair, but what do i know? please, i was wondering if one of you out there might be kind enough to perhaps check an israeli phone book for me. the author has kindly stamped his address (and a conflicting version of his name that inverts the word order, which is to say [alef-yud-bet-gimel-yud] .Haviv.) on the front page. He lives in Mi.kod (or Mi.kud [mem-yud-kuf-vav-dalet]; I've never heard of the place, it's in none of the books, and my geographical knowledge of israel can be summed up nicely in the phrase, "doodley-squat"). many thanks in advance. b
Re: avgi, etc--Romanization q
and Mikud is not a place name but the Hebrew word for ZIP-Code ... At 03:21 PM 7/19/2005, you wrote: Folks: I've got a book the author of which has one of those very special last names that might require a provisional status. the name: .Haviv [alef-yud-bet-gimel-yud]. yes, it looks like ivgi, but it could also be ibgi, ebgi, or evgi. i think the form two are better guesses than the latter pair, but what do i know? please, i was wondering if one of you out there might be kind enough to perhaps check an israeli phone book for me. the author has kindly stamped his address (and a conflicting version of his name that inverts the word order, which is to say [alef-yud-bet-gimel-yud] .Haviv.) on the front page. He lives in Mi.kod (or Mi.kud [mem-yud-kuf-vav-dalet]; I've never heard of the place, it's in none of the books, and my geographical knowledge of israel can be summed up nicely in the phrase, "doodley-squat"). many thanks in advance. b
Re: avgi, etc--Romanization q
It is Ivgi Yossi At 03:21 PM 7/19/2005, you wrote: Folks: I've got a book the author of which has one of those very special last names that might require a provisional status. the name: .Haviv [alef-yud-bet-gimel-yud]. yes, it looks like ivgi, but it could also be ibgi, ebgi, or evgi. i think the form two are better guesses than the latter pair, but what do i know? please, i was wondering if one of you out there might be kind enough to perhaps check an israeli phone book for me. the author has kindly stamped his address (and a conflicting version of his name that inverts the word order, which is to say [alef-yud-bet-gimel-yud] .Haviv.) on the front page. He lives in Mi.kod (or Mi.kud [mem-yud-kuf-vav-dalet]; I've never heard of the place, it's in none of the books, and my geographical knowledge of israel can be summed up nicely in the phrase, "doodley-squat"). many thanks in advance. b
avgi, etc--Romanization q
Folks: I've got a book the author of which has one of those very special last names that might require a provisional status. the name: .Haviv [alef-yud-bet-gimel-yud]. yes, it looks like ivgi, but it could also be ibgi, ebgi, or evgi. i think the form two are better guesses than the latter pair, but what do i know? please, i was wondering if one of you out there might be kind enough to perhaps check an israeli phone book for me. the author has kindly stamped his address (and a conflicting version of his name that inverts the word order, which is to say [alef-yud-bet-gimel-yud] .Haviv.) on the front page. He lives in Mi.kod (or Mi.kud [mem-yud-kuf-vav-dalet]; I've never heard of the place, it's in none of the books, and my geographical knowledge of israel can be summed up nicely in the phrase, "doodley-squat"). many thanks in advance. b
Re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
Again, I think it should be a local decision by the Cataloging agency and
not a mandated or even mentioning it as optional (I am sure Library
administrators will hate the fact that we are spending hours looking
through the whole pile of the Talmud to find the correct verse)
Yossi
At 02:56 PM 7/19/2005, you wrote:
IMHO, I do not think that *identifying* the source of the chronogram is
bibliographically significant, and would advise against incorprating this
idea into the rules, even on an optional basis.
My understanding is that we should be thinking in terms of recommendations
that make the rules easier to apply, more logical, and more universally
applicable, rather than those that add new layers of complexity.
Lenore
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 12:07 PM >>>
I like this idea! And I'm quite willing to transcribe the whole chronogram
in a note--my only question is whether the SOURCE of the chronogram ("Ps.
92:12" or the like)--not the CONTENT of the chronogram, whether or not it
refers to the content of the item or the author's name-- is
bibliographically important enough to be required. If we say recording the
source is optional, I have no objection.
Joan
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 11:52 AM >>>
For complex chronograms in which only selected letters comprise the date,
just supply a bracketed Hebrew date. The entire chronogram could then be
transcribed (optionally) in a note.
Lenore
Re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
IMHO, I do not think that *identifying* the source of the chronogram is
bibliographically significant, and would advise against incorprating this idea
into the rules, even on an optional basis.
My understanding is that we should be thinking in terms of recommendations that
make the rules easier to apply, more logical, and more universally applicable,
rather than those that add new layers of complexity.
Lenore
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 12:07 PM >>>
I like this idea! And I'm quite willing to transcribe the whole chronogram in
a note--my only question is whether the SOURCE of the chronogram ("Ps. 92:12"
or the like)--not the CONTENT of the chronogram, whether or not it refers to
the content of the item or the author's name-- is bibliographically important
enough to be required. If we say recording the source is optional, I have no
objection.
Joan
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 11:52 AM >>>
For complex chronograms in which only selected letters comprise the date, just
supply a bracketed Hebrew date. The entire chronogram could then be
transcribed (optionally) in a note.
Lenore
Re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
I agree, but there's no reason why it can't be an optional note.
- Original Message -
From: "Yossi Galron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
>
> I don't think adding the source is adding much to the bibliographic
> information (if at all).
> I wouldn't mandate it, but if a cataloger wants to add it - it should be
> done in a note and not in the 260 field.
>
>
> At 12:07 PM 7/19/2005, you wrote:
> I like this idea! And I'm quite willing to transcribe the whole
chronogram
> in a note--my only question is whether the SOURCE of the chronogram ("Ps.
> 92:12" or the like)--not the CONTENT of the chronogram, whether or not it
> refers to the content of the item or the author's name-- is
> bibliographically important enough to be required. If we say recording
the
> source is optional, I have no objection.
>
> Joan
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 11:52 AM >>>
> For complex chronograms in which only selected letters comprise the date,
> just supply a bracketed Hebrew date. The entire chronogram could then be
> transcribed (optionally) in a note.
>
> Lenore
>
>
re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
I haven't been following this discussion that closely, but what is generally done in roman script books that contain chronograms? I would expect something like, in the 260, having the chronogram transcribed with the derived date in brackets, with a 5xx describing the chronogram and how the date was derived. -Stanley Nachamie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
I don't think adding the source is adding much to the bibliographic
information (if at all).
I wouldn't mandate it, but if a cataloger wants to add it - it should be
done in a note and not in the 260 field.
At 12:07 PM 7/19/2005, you wrote:
I like this idea! And I'm quite willing to transcribe the whole chronogram
in a note--my only question is whether the SOURCE of the chronogram ("Ps.
92:12" or the like)--not the CONTENT of the chronogram, whether or not it
refers to the content of the item or the author's name-- is
bibliographically important enough to be required. If we say recording the
source is optional, I have no objection.
Joan
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 11:52 AM >>>
For complex chronograms in which only selected letters comprise the date,
just supply a bracketed Hebrew date. The entire chronogram could then be
transcribed (optionally) in a note.
Lenore
Re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
Perhaps the colon was a bad example. What I had in mind initially was that the AACR2 states, "Transcribe the title proper exactly as to wording, order, and spelling, but not neccessarily as to punctuation and capitalization" (1.1B1). If this rule had an equal with regard to the Publication Area, then perhaps adding a geresh would work. However, I cannot seem to find such a rule. That doesn't mean, however, that we can't propose it as a new rule in RDA. Though the suggestion that Lenore just posted also sounds viable. Steven - Original Message - From: "Joan C Biella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 10:45 AM Subject: Re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s 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: 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 bra
Re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
I like this idea! And I'm quite willing to transcribe the whole chronogram in
a note--my only question is whether the SOURCE of the chronogram ("Ps. 92:12"
or the like)--not the CONTENT of the chronogram, whether or not it refers to
the content of the item or the author's name-- is bibliographically important
enough to be required. If we say recording the source is optional, I have no
objection.
Joan
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 11:52 AM >>>
For complex chronograms in which only selected letters comprise the date, just
supply a bracketed Hebrew date. The entire chronogram could then be
transcribed (optionally) in a note.
Lenore
Re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
Some alternative approaches include: Transcribing the entire chronogram followed by a bracketed Hebrew date For complex chronograms in which only selected letters comprise the date, just supply a bracketed Hebrew date. The entire chronogram could then be transcribed (optionally) in a note. Lenore >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/05 11:15 AM >>> 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: 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 on
Re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
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: 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 comprehensibilit
Re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
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: 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
Re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
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: 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
Re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
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: 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
