The following is a brief summary of suggested responses to this thread,
placed in the context of Laurence's message below.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Laurence Creider wrote:
> ... what provision in the rules disallows the use of the verb or
> its abbreviation?
The term "sculpsit" is not a "descriptive phrase", it is a "statement of
> Gary Strawn is correct in that the qualifying term need not be a noun
A "term of address" would probably be interpreted to be a "noun", but
prepositional "descriptive phrases" [e.g., "of Lancaster"] are permissible
for pre-20th century persons. Others?
> you cannot (absent a provision in an LCRI) create authority records with
> a term that is not present in some source, something you can do for
Yes. In fact, an abundance of "engravers" in the NAF have the term lifted
from secondary sources, even though something akin to "sculp." may appear
on works [search personal name = engraver and look especially for DLC
records and for possible reference sources for your engravers].
> I would prefer to invoke the statement in the LCRI for 22.19 that, "When
> a descriptive phrase ... would result in an awkward addition ... prefer
> the "flourished" or "century" date(s)."
Nice, but very prone to cataloger's prerogative!
> Since you will be doing a lot of these, investment in comprehensive reference
> sources might be worthwhile.
And try online, too.
>>> (example: 100 Andre, $c sculp.)
One should always be sufficiently wary of *non-LC* "established"
headings to avoid using them as examples of any "approved" NACO practice
[caviat: I am not implying that LC is always "right" either, but it is
John G. Marr
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
**"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.