I see even 1xx's with inflected forms (I am a Slavic cataloger). Sure, I
am horrified every time. BUT if catalogers are not familiar with various
languages, what about our *users*? Or machines?
One thing about a lot of our rules that give me pause, is how much human
erudition is required on the part of people using the catalogs/data we
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 Wed, 16 May 2012, John C. DeSantis wrote:
> 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.
> John DeSantis
> Dartmouth College
> 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