If you get Arabic colleagues to supply Arabic-script parallel fields for
your Cyrillic records, then I'm wrong and the text is fine as it is!
I'm happy to let the issue rest.
D. Brooking wrote:
> 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
> Diana Brooking (206) 685-0389
> Cataloging Librarian (206) 685-8782 fax
> Suzzallo Library [log in to unmask]
> University of Washington
> Box 352900
> 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
>> 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.