Well, this is just one library's practice in some of its non-Latin units.
So I wouldn't say you are "wrong."
Part of the problem with these guidelines is that it is up to *us* to
suggest what is wrong and right now. But I think no one is up for
diverging too much from what is current practice, given the uncertainties
that we've already discussed in many places. But even determining what is
current practice is not straighforward at all!
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:
> 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 here.
>> 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 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.