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.
