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
: 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
.
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
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
PROTECTED]
To: heb-naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
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
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
I agree, but there's no reason why it can't be an optional note.
- Original Message -
From: Yossi Galron [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: heb-naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
I don't think adding the source
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
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
I would suggest the way I am doing it: I am recording the whole Chronogram
and adding a Geresh after each of the Bold letters if not all letters are
to be counted.
See: http://library.ohio-state.edu/search/o?SEARCH=34532012
In the above case, only the Shin-mem-shin in the verse are to be
10 matches
Mail list logo
