Robert said, "I think I would summarize current practice as: if a
non-Latin parallel heading is entered, the heading/qualifiers must
normally be in the script of the title being cataloged."
I think this is why I didn't understand the issue. Because it's not our
current practice. Actually, our practice here for Cyrillic anyway is to
always supply the non-latin parallel heading in the language/script of the
heading entity itself. That's why we supply nothing for English or Czech
name headings in a record. And why we supply Bulgarian for a Bulgarian
name, even if the title being cataloged is in Russian or French.
But if we have a Hebrew name or an Arabic name heading in a record for a
title in Russian or Serbian, then the Cyrillic catalogers usually don't
supply a parallel heading at all! (Because we are clueless in Hebrew and
Arabic.) But there are those instances where we get a colleague to supply
what's necessary if we think it is vital.
(I don't know what our CJK catalogers are up to, though, they have a
completely separate shop...)
So to make a long story short, I would be comfortable with the language
that's in there now, because it mirrors our current practice here.
Diana Brooking (206) 685-0389
Cataloging Librarian (206) 685-8782 fax
Suzzallo Library [log in to unmask]
University of Washington
Seattle WA 98195-2900
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Robert Rendall wrote:
> See below.
> D. Brooking wrote:
> See comments below,
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Robert Rendall wrote:
> Where are we now with that phrase "The headings must be in the language/script of the body, person, or title"?
> --> DB: I am sorry, I can't find this thread. Is it the presence of the phrase (appears in several places) that is the issue,
> or just the wording of the phrase? The wording does sound awkward. What does RDA say? the "entity"???
> The most recent draft says:
> Non-Latin data may be supplied in parallel fields for headings established in non-standard romanization or in a conventional Latin-script
> form. The headings must be in the language/script of the body, person, or title [...]
> In non-Latin parallel fields, cataloger-created qualifiers may be entered in a non-Latin form. The qualifiers must be in the
> language/script of the body, person, or title [...]
> That would cover:
> 1) entering Hebrew-script parallel fields for Israeli corporate bodies appearing in Latin-script records for titles in English (current
> practice, at least occasionally or for some scripts)
> 2) entering Hebrew-script parallel fields for Israeli corporate bodies appearing in Cyrillic-script records for titles in Russian (not
> current practice for any scripts, as far as I know)
> I think I would summarize current practice as: if a non-Latin parallel heading is entered, the heading/qualifiers must normally be in the
> script of the title being cataloged. Except for bib. records for Latin-script titles, where the authorized form is already in the same
> script at the title cataloged and takes care of the need for a heading legible to the monolingual patron, so you can add a parallel
> heading in another script if you feel like it. But I don't know how much sense that makes as a general principle.