On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Stanley Elswick wrote:

> Obviously, the rules and interpretations need clarification.


>  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 

>  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' 


                                             John G. Marr
                                             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.