On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Stanley Elswick wrote:

> Obviously, the rules and interpretations need clarification.

   Amen.

> an explicit (although ambiguous) sentence

   What a concept! Would that be explicitly ambiguous or ambiguously
explicit ... [grin]? GWB may have defined this principal by example ...

> 22.3A means [not] that the rulemakers intended that we *not* take into
> account theses everywhere else.

   That is an adequate local working hypothesis, but you need to answer the
question, to wit: why are theses given a relatively exceptional level of
mention?

> We just don't know what they intended.

   Amen, and that is insufficient for a "rule" or a law and contrary to the
basic principles of same.

> I would like to have a rule that excepts theses from establishing the most
> common form of the name

   Amen. For the time being, catalogers' prerogative of interpretation of
ambiguity allows that.

> but neither such a rule nor such an interpretation exists right now.

   Nor does the opposite exist, so we are [too?] free to apply catalogers'
prerogative.

Cheers!

    jgm
                                             John G. Marr
                                             Cataloger
                                             CDS, UL
                                             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!"**
                                             Martha Watson

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.