LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1 Archives

PCCTG1 Archives


PCCTG1@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1 Home

PCCTG1  March 2010

PCCTG1 March 2010

Subject:

Re: Peter's translation suggestion

From:

"Fletcher, Peter" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:38:29 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (625 lines)

I like your introductory wording; gets to the point of what our
guidelines assume. The interrogatory approach is also effective later in
the paragraph. 

I think I have also seen Arabic records providing Arabic parallel data
rather than the script of the heading. 

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 12:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion

Might I suggest a slight reordering and re-wording of the paragraph for
clarity?  Something like:

"These guidelines assume that parallel non-Latin data will be supplied
in the language and script of the heading. However, several members of
the task force noted that some catalogers, particularly in the HAPY
community of practice, may provide parallel data for a heading in the
language of the resource being cataloged, regardless of the
language/script associate with the heading. For example, for a Yiddish
translation of Russian a work by Dostoevsky, the non-Latin parallel data
for both a uniform title and the name heading for Dostoevsky would be
rendered in Yiddish/Hebrew instead of Russian/Cyrillic. Should
catalogers always supply parallel non-Latin data in the language and
script of the heading, or is it permissible [useful?] to use the
language and script that appear on the piece being cataloged?  The task
force did not reach consensus on this matter; but it believes [we
believe?] it to be an that PCC should be aware of, and may wish to
address in the future."

BTW I'm not sure if this is really a HAPY issue or just a Hebrew/Yiddish
issue, but that's ok.

--Ben

Benjamin Abrahamse
Head, Serials Cataloging Section
Cataloging and Metadata Services
MIT Libraries
617-253-7137


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Fletcher, Peter
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion

I would like to include a paragraph in the report such as:

"Translations/language/script of heading: The topic of translations,
especially from one non-Latin script to another, brought into focus the
issue of giving the parallel non-Latin data either in the
language/script of the heading or of the resource being cataloged.
Several members of the task force noted that especially some catalogers
among the HAPY community often provide parallel data for a heading in
the language of the resource being cataloged, regardless of the
language/script associate with the heading. For example, for a Yiddish
translation of Russian a work by Dostoevsky, the non-Latin parallel data
for both a uniform title and the name heading for Dostoevsky would be
rendered in Yiddish script, not Russian/Cyrillic. The inclination of the
task force to allow or disallow this practice was not uniform, but the
task force believes it is an issue that PCC should be aware of and may
wish to address among its members and form a firm policy. As these
guidelines are written the assumption is that the parallel non-Latin
data will be in the language/script of the heading."


This would require some kind of feedback from PCC.

Also, just a reminder, it is my understanding that PCC Standing
Committee on Standards will review it first, and then it would go to the
PCC Policy Committee for review and approval. At any point in the
process it might come back to us for revision, etc.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of David W Reser
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 6:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion

Just a question-- so are the guidelines going out for review for
feedback?  If so, I can see reinstating the translation issue and
specifically asking for feedback.  If not, I'd be somewhat uncomfortable
with putting back in if we're having so much trouble understanding it
(at least I am!).
Dave



>>> "D. Brooking" <[log in to unmask]> 3/24/2010 6:50 PM >>>
I am not sure if Robert is really the only person with translation
issues,
but I do agree with his idea to remove references to translations, put
back in the examples, etc. *if it is not too late for that.*

If we make the rule (i.e., supply the non-Latin in lang/script of the
heading itself, not the lang/script as found on piece) then we can see
what kind of feedback we get when the guidelines are put out for review.

That way we may see more clearly who has issues.

On the other hand, a quick check of Tolstoy on OCLC shows that there are

plenty of Arabic and Hebrew parallel fields to his heading, but
virtually
no CJK ones. Which is the expected divide between HAPY and CJK
communities
I believe. HAPY being very free with headings and CJK being very strict.



************
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 Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Robert Rendall wrote:

> If I'm really the only person who has trouble with translations, then
I won't mind if we remove all references to "translations are not
> covered" from the guidelines and report and put the simple examples we
had earlier back in.  If this is a nonissue for most people we
> shouldn't complicate our report by making it one.
>
> Robert.
>
> Fletcher, Peter wrote:
>
> Yes #402662369 is how I supposed things would normally be done ...
>
> We may get feedback from SCS, I don't know, but they may not
understand
> our trouble with translations. We'll see.
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Robert Rendall
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 2:50 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion
>
> Yes, as I said earlier, not everything with a Russian or Arabic
> corporate body in a 710 is necessarily a translation from Russian or
> Arabic.  Or see for example the 610 in OCLC #53475867.  But if we've
> decided that the preferred practice is to enter all headings in the
> language of the body, person, or title, and the Hebrew practice that
> made sense to me is exceptional, then not even translations are a
> problem any more.  After all, I just found OCLC #402662369, and that's
a
>
> PCC record created right here at Columbia.
>
> Robert.
>
> D. Brooking wrote:
>
>
> I am not sure if this makes a difference at this point or not, but the
>
>
>
>
> assumption that if we have eliminated translations, we have eliminated
>
>
>
>
> this issue is not true.
>
> For example, a work that is originally in Russian, but two of the
> editors are Ukrainian and their names are set up in Ukrainian
> (romanized). You need to choose the *Ukrainian* macro to get the
> correct Cyrillic, not the Russian. There may be many reasons the
> authorized form of a name does not match the language of the resource
> itself. The problem is much more frequent with translations, but by no
>
>
>
>
> means unknown for non-translations.
>
> We still may not want to figure out the solution to this, but we need
> to be aware that it's not just translations vs. non-translations.
>
>
>
> ************
> 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 Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Fletcher, Peter wrote:
>
>
>
> Ok, sorry about the miscommunication. I think I want to convey that
>
>
> the
>
>
> script must be that of the heading, as opposed to the resource being
> cataloged in 2.5.2.1, but now since we have eliminated translations
>
>
> it
>
>
> is a moot point since there is only one language involved and the
> language of the headings is the same as the resource being cataloged.
>
> So, I think your point is well taken for 2.5.2.2.
>
> And the wording in 2.5.2.1 can stay as:
>
> "The headings must be in the language/script of the body, person, or
> title, and the form entered can be derived from the resource itself
>
>
> or
>
>
> if necessary from a standard reference source in the language/script
>
>
> of
>
>
> the heading."
>
> I suppose there are occasions where we can over think a problem.
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of David W Reser
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:25 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion
>
> Peter--  I was only actually complaining about the wording about
> qualifiers (2.5.2.2), didn't really have a problem with 2.5.2.1 (the
> same may not be true of other commenters).
>
> As for 2.5.2.1, I could live with what was there, or live with
>
>
> removing
>
>
> the second sentence, but I don't think the replacement text "**The
> language/script used must be the one associated with the heading.** "
> actually says anything, or at least could be open to many
> interpretations.
>
> Sorry not to be clearer earlier.
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> "Fletcher, Peter" <[log in to unmask]> 3/24/2010 3:05 PM
>
>
> Sorry, I should have pointed out where these texts come from in the
>
>
> doc.
>
>
> You are right about the location of the qualifiers example, the other
> part comes from 2.5.2.1.
>
> With your suggestion 2.5.2.1 would read:
>
> "Non-Latin data may be supplied in parallel fields for headings
> established in non-standard romanization or in a conventional
> Latin-script form. When possible, prefer a non-Latin form that
> corresponds most closely to the authorized Latin form."
>
> What about:
>
> "Non-Latin data may be supplied in parallel fields for headings
> established in non-standard romanization or in a conventional
> Latin-script form. **The language/script used must be the one
>
>
> associated
>
>
> with the heading.** Prefer a non-Latin form that corresponds most
> closely to the authorized Latin form."
>
>
> and at 2.5.2.2 it could be left as David suggests:
>
> "In non-Latin parallel fields, cataloger-created qualifiers may be
> entered in a non-Latin form. When possible, prefer a non-Latin form
>
>
> that
>
>
> corresponds most closely to the authorized Latin form of the
>
>
> qualifier."
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of David W Reser
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:15 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion
>
> So, if we are having too much difficulty trying to put parameters on
> what qualifiers should look like in an optional approach (correct me
>
>
> if
>
>
> I'm wrong that we're talking about 2.5.2.2. here), maybe we should
>
>
> just
>
>
> omit the statement "The qualifiers must be in the language/script of
>
>
> the
>
>
> heading itself, and the form entered can be derived from the
>
>
> resource,
>
>
> or if necessary from a standard reference source in the
>
>
> language/script
>
>
> of the heading."  The point of the option was that you could use
> non-Latin qualifiers in the optional approach (which the first
>
>
> sentence
>
>
> already says).  Leave it at that?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> "Fletcher, Peter" <[log in to unmask]> 3/23/2010 7:28 PM
>
>
> No kidding.
>
> I think the problem with the statements:
>
> The headings must be in the language/script of the body,
> person, or title [...] and:
>
> 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 [...]
>
> is that what I meant to say is the language of the "heading" itself,
> which can be a body, person, or title (730, 240, 130). Would it be
> clearer to say "headings must be in the language of the heading
>
>
> itself"?
>
>
> This way you don't get confused about whether or not the script is
>
>
> taken
>
>
> from the piece at hand.
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Robert Rendall
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 2:19 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion
>
> Well, at least my assertion that "nobody does this" was wrong!  I was
> waiting for someone to contradict me...
>
> I'm happy to start thinking in terms of wrapping up now rather than
> raising any more problems!  It's been a long ride.
>
> R.
>
> D. Brooking wrote:
>
>
> 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
> Box 352900
> 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.
>
> Robert.
>
> 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 [...]
> and:
> 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)
>
> and
>
> 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.
>
> Robert.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
October 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
December 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
June 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
July 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager