Christopher,
Johannis and Johannes differ by only one letter. Don't keyword search systems provide mechanisms that ask "did you mean Johannes Channing?" if you enter Johannis Channing? At least Google does. So it seems the need to include the exact form that occurs on the piece may not be very high for Google searches.
Andrew, thanks for your expert input on the name. Since Johannes Channing doesn't seem to be attested, I suppose the case for it over Johannis isn't airtight. But if you look into nb2010007680 (Bennet, Johannis), it's clear that it should be Bennet, Johannes. If you look at OCLC #751733627, for the book the first 670 was made from, it's clear that Johannis is a genitive, and Johannes is attested, based on the second 670.
Ted Gemberling
UAB Lister Hill Library
-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CHRISTOPHER WALKER
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Latin question on personal name
Colleagues,
Marty, Gary, and I date from an era when an appreciable percentage of catalog users
had studied a foreign language that might have inflected forms, and when
browse searching was a common strategy.
We are now serving patrons who prefer keyword searching,
and a dwindling population familiar with Latin.
For these reasons I would look to the general guideline that recommends providing
the variant cross-references that can reasonably be anticipated as search strategies,
and might vote for the 400 with the case ending that appears on the piece -
though, like Marty, after all these years of professional practice,
if I were establishing the heading in the nominative as required by the rule,
it might not occur to me to add it.
In the specific case cited, the heading floated in the Authority File for 21 years
with only the genitive ending, an additional argument, perhaps, for preserving access
via that form when the heading is corrected.
Christopher H. Walker
Serials Cataloging Librarian
Penn State's representative to the CONSER Operations Committee
Chair, Ulrichs Serials Librarianship Award Jury, 2011/2012
126 Paterno Library
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802-1812
(814) 865-4212
[log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary L Strawn" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:37:52 PM
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Latin question on personal name
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] 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 : ǂ b cvm aliis nonnvllis eivsdem argvmenti / ǂ c 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
|