<[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
     <[log in to unmask]
          >
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5400 definitions=6713 signatures=664774
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0
 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx
 scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1203120001 definitions=main-1205160205

Gary,

To be honest, "benighted" would apply to many rare book catalogers as well
as to general users. People do look for what is on the title page or in
their citation, and fewer people know Latin, even cataloging Latin. When
the institution where I was employed was looking for a rare book cataloger
15 years or so ago, we had a hard time finding someone who knew Latin,
something that was essential given the nature of the institution's
collection.

Frankly, I would not complain if someone else added a see from reference
for Channing, Johannis to the apparently correct form of Channing, John.
Correct or not, that will be a form under which people will look. NACO's
policies here are not useful to the user, including some catalogers.

Larry
--
Laurence S. Creider
Interim Head
Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
[log in to unmask]

On Wed, May 16, 2012 11:37 am, Gary L Strawn wrote:
> But there's an additional point here anyway, which I restrained myself
from making in my earlier message. Too often we restrict the 4XXs we
make
> because the people one some restricted community would never think of
searching that way and have found a way for their narrow view to
prevail;
> but of course that leaves out everyone else. That's actually why I
wouldn't bark at a 4XX for the genitive form: some benighted person
might
> actually find it on the titlepage and might actually look for it.
>
> Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
> Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL
> 60208-2300
> e-mail: [log in to unmask] voice: 847/491-2788 fax:
> 847/491-8306
> Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version:
2007.22.416
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Joachim Jr, Martin D
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:09 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Latin question on personal name
>
> Gary,
> I disagree with making a reference from an inflected
form
> of a name. A ref. from “Channing, Johannis” makes no
> more sense than a ref. from “Shakespeare’s, William”
> when the t.p. has: William Shakespeare’s Hamlet.
> Marty Joachim (ret.)
> Indiana University Libraries
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Gary L Strawn
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:05 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Latin question on personal name
>
> You are absolutely correct. In this context, "Iohannis Channing" is in
the genitive case, and needs to be expressed in the nominative when
constructing the authority 100.
>
> It's well known that if you go looking for something, you're likely to
find it; so adventures concerning headings that appear to have been
constructed in the genitive come as no real surprise. I wouldn't bark,
though, at a 400 for a non-nominative form.
>
> Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
> Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL
> 60208-2300
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
voice:
> 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
> Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version:
2007.22.416
>
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]>
On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:48 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [PCCLIST] Latin question on personal name
>
> I ran into something that I think is probably an error, but I wanted to
make sure before changing it. nr 91024583 is set up as Channing,
Johannis,
> with a 400 for an English form. I found some dates that can be added to it.
>
> I am cataloging a book with this 245 information: Rhazes De variolis et
morbillis, arabice et latine : ǂb cvm aliis nonnvllis eivsdem argvmenti
/
> ǂc cvra et impensis Iohannis Channing ...
>
> So it’s a work by the medieval Arab writer Rhazes, edited (and
translated?) by John Channing. The date is 1766. The person who set up
the
> authority for Channing saw the usage Johannis for the given name and set
the heading up with it. But doesn’t “cvra et impensis Iohannis
Channing” mean “at the care and expense OF John Channing”? So
Johannis seems to be a genitive form, and the nominative would most
likely
> be Johannes, even though it’s unattested as far as I know. I realize
that Johannis does occur as an undisputable part of some names, as
apparently n 88028405 (Hardenbergh, Johannis G., for a Dutch-American
farmer.) But for most writers who wrote in Latin, it seems incorrect.
>
> Another example of this sort of error might be nb2010007680. Johannis is
used in the 100 and Johannes in the 400. The 670 doesn’t give us
enough
> information about the occurrence of Johannis, but from the bib record it
may be from, OCLC # 751733627, it’s clear that it should be understood
as a genitive.
>
> I noticed another thing: sometimes a name heading is set up with
Johannes
> in the 100 and Johannis in the 400. An example is nr 93031760. Is that
necessary, since the –is form is a grammatical ending? And there is so
little difference between “Johannes” and “Johannis” that it
seems
> there is no access issue involved. It’s not like someone would fail to
find the name if you didn’t include Johannis.
>
> Thanks for any thoughts or information you might have on these matters.
>
> Ted Gemberling
> UAB Lister Hill Library
> (205)934-2461
>
>
>