On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Stanley Elswick wrote: > Obviously, the rules and interpretations need clarification. Amen. > an explicit (although ambiguous) sentence What a concept! Would that be explicitly ambiguous or ambiguously explicit ... [grin]? GWB may have defined this principal by example ... > 22.3A means [not] that the rulemakers intended that we *not* take into > account theses everywhere else. That is an adequate local working hypothesis, but you need to answer the question, to wit: why are theses given a relatively exceptional level of mention? > We just don't know what they intended. Amen, and that is insufficient for a "rule" or a law and contrary to the basic principles of same. > I would like to have a rule that excepts theses from establishing the most > common form of the name Amen. For the time being, catalogers' prerogative of interpretation of ambiguity allows that. > but neither such a rule nor such an interpretation exists right now. Nor does the opposite exist, so we are [too?] free to apply catalogers' prerogative. Cheers! jgm John G. Marr Cataloger CDS, UL Univ. of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] **"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"** Martha Watson Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.