Print

Print


My stab at it:

Translations: guidelines for entering original-script name and title 
headings in bibliographic records for translations are not included in 
this document.  Translations from one non-Latin script language to 
another raise special problems and further investigation into current 
practice and user needs is needed.

[I think we have to specify non-Latin > non-Latin or else people will 
just think of simple examples of translations into English like the ones 
we had in our document and say what's the problem?]

Where are we now with that phrase "The headings must be in the 
language/script of the body, person, or title"?

Robert.

Fletcher, Peter wrote:
> All, what about this text:
>
> Translations: translations are not covered in this section of the document due to problems and inconsistencies in records requiring two or more scripts (in the context of a translated resource) and problems with balancing the needs of local users vs. consistency in national cataloging practice.
>
> as the 3rd paragraph at 2.5. This is a first stab; not really sure how to convey this complicated issue in a short sentence or two. 
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of D. Brooking
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 1:13 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion
>
> Understood.
>
>
>
>
> ************
> Diana Brooking             (206) 685-0389
> Cataloging Librarian       (206) 685-8782 fax
> Suzzallo Library           [log in to unmask]
> University of Washington
> Box 352900
> Seattle WA  98195-2900
>
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Fletcher, Peter wrote:
>
>   
>> Not really moved on; I have made the most recent comment on the issue, your email contains. Unfortunately, the Google version is no longer the latest one. In downloading the version with comments, the process of downloading messes with the right to left examples, so I do not want to post it there again now that I have most examples corrected and that we have only until Thursday to submit the guidelines.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of D. Brooking
>> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 12:07 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't mind punting on translation issues as Peter suggests. Not sure
>> if we have moved on from this point now though.
>>
>> I can't find anything that recent in Google docs. Is there one place where
>> I can go to see the current state of the doc??
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ************
>> Diana Brooking             (206) 685-0389
>> Cataloging Librarian       (206) 685-8782 fax
>> Suzzallo Library           [log in to unmask]
>> University of Washington
>> Box 352900
>> Seattle WA  98195-2900
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010, Fletcher, Peter wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> I think the issues with translations bring up some problems with consistency and more. I think I will create at the beginning of 2.5
>>> stating that translations are not covered here: ?Translations: translations are not covered in this section of the document due to problems
>>> and inconsistencies in records requiring two or more scripts and problems with balancing the needs of local users vs. consistency in
>>> national cataloging practice.?
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> I?ll remove the translation examples.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Rendall
>>> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 12:16 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Non Latin document final check
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Responses below.
>>>
>>> Fletcher, Peter wrote:
>>>
>>> Translations are not a false problem, we've just sidestepped the issue by giving examples only of translations into English.  We still
>>> don't have guidelines for translations e.g. from Russian into Hebrew.  Probably the parallel 100 and 245 should be in Hebrew script and
>>> the 240 with the transliterated Russian original title should just be left unpaired, but I don't think we necessarily have to tackle that
>>> now.
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Well, with translations from Russian to Hebrew, the parallel non-Latin 130 or 240 should reflect the original language of the title, in
>>> this case, Russian, so the principles are the same as for English translations. We need to understand that in these cases, the data cannot
>>> be taken from the piece in hand, just as is the case for English translations. By stating that the non-Latin data field must be in the
>>> language of the heading (title, name, etc.), it is made clear. Perhaps we can just say ?must be in the language of the heading?.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Is this not what we want:
>>>
>>> 100 1 ???????????, ?????, ?d1821-1881. [taken from reference source; not from resource at hand]
>>>
>>> 100 1 Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, ?d1821-1881.
>>>
>>> 240 10 ?a???????????? ? ?????????. ?lHebrew [taken from reference source; not from resource at hand]
>>>
>>> 240 10 ?aPrestuplenie i nakazanie. ?lHebrew
>>>
>>> 245 11?a ???? ????? : ?b???? ???? ????? ?? ?????? / ?c?.?.?????????? ; ???? ?.?.????.
>>>
>>> 245 13 ha-H?et? v?e-?onesho : ?broman be-shishah h?alak?im ?im epilog / ?cF.M. Dost?oyevsk?i ; tirgem Y. H?. Brener.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Since time is short, and if we cannot agree, I am willing to also state that translations are not covered by our guidelines.
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I don't think that's what we want.  I think we want the 100 to be in Hebrew for Hebrew-speaking catalog users looking at the record
>>> for this Hebrew-language title, and if so then what to do with the 240 is a dilemma.
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Transliteration is not the same as romanization.  The definition we're giving applies to transliteration in general; romanization is
>>> specifically transliteration into Latin script.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> ok to  remove the ?synonymous? statement.
>>>
>>>
>>> and add a separate definition for each.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to omit the Xun yi cao no chun tian example.  It's an example of a cataloger-provided translation (or something), which has
>>> nothing to do with what we're talking about in this section.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which section?
>>>
>>>
>>> 2.3.1. Mixed Script Descriptive Fields
>>>
>>> If we want an example of Chinese and Japanese in the same field we could use something simpler like the 245 in OCLC #252480272, where the
>>> Japanese can only be read as Japanese and the Chinese can only be read as Chinese.
>>>
>>>
>>> "The headings must be in the language/script of the body, person, or title":  we need to think about this more.  Otherwise we'll have
>>> Cyrillic parallel headings for Russian corporate bodies in Hebrew records, etc.  I think current practice is that the headings must be in
>>> the script of the title cataloged, except in records for titles in Latin script, where we sometimes provide non-Latin parallel-script
>>> fields for non-Latin headings.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> I don?t understand. That is what you would want. Russian corporate bodies are established in Russian (i.e., Cyrillic), not Hebrew, so the
>>> parallel non-Latin heading will be in Cyrillic, even in a record for a Hebrew translation. If it was a Hebrew body, then it would be in
>>> Hebrew script. I know that a lot of Hebraica catalogers may be doing this (e.g. providing Hebrew or Yiddish parallel heading for Russian
>>> headings, etc.), but do we want to provide this option?
>>>
>>>
>>> Again, this isn't what I want.  I've never seen Hebrew script entered in a Cyrillic record or vice versa.  And what would a Russian- or
>>> Hebrew-speaking patron make of that?  I think this would fall under the category of inventing new practices, and I don't think we should
>>> do that. 
>>>
>>> Robert.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>