I agree that it would create a real mess if there were a see-reference from every single case form of a name. But I don't think Gary, Larry, and Adam were "suggesting" putting them on. I think they were only saying it's something that can be tolerated to some extent, given that not everyone knows the grammars of the various languages. Perhaps we can fix those errors as we run into them.
UAB Lister Hill Library
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John C. DeSantis
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Latin question on personal name
I too disagree with the suggestion to make cross references from non-nominative forms of names. This is not just a question of Latin-- many language groups have inflected forms, including Slavic and Finno-Ugric. I would think it would suffice to record the inflected form as usage in the 670. Unlike some others, I would actually be horrified if I saw an authority record with an inflected form in a 400 field; it would suggest to me that the cataloger was not familiar with the language of the item being cataloged.
Sent from my iPad
On May 16, 2012, at 5:40 PM, "Adam L. Schiff" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Except that many of the rest of us are pretty ignorant about Latin forms of name and might not realize that a form is inflected. The reference directs them to the proper form.
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> [log in to unmask]
> On Wed, 16 May 2012, Joachim Jr, Martin D wrote:
>> 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] 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 Ted P Gemberling
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:48 AM
>> To: [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 : ?bcvm aliis
>> nonnvllis eivsdem argvmenti / ?ccvra 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