Print

Print


See below.

D. Brooking wrote:
> See comments below,
>
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Robert Rendall wrote:
>
>> Where are we now with that phrase "The headings must be in the 
>> language/script of the body, person, or title"?
>>
>
> --> DB: I am sorry, I can't find this thread. Is it the presence of 
> the phrase (appears in several places) that is the issue, or just the 
> wording of the phrase? The wording does sound awkward. What does RDA 
> say? the "entity"???
>

The most recent draft says:

Non-Latin data may be supplied in parallel fields for headings 
established in non-standard romanization or in a conventional 
Latin-script form.  The headings must be in the language/script of the 
body, person, or title [...]
and:
In non-Latin parallel fields, cataloger-created qualifiers may be 
entered in a non-Latin form.  The qualifiers must be in the 
language/script of the body, person, or title [...]

That would cover:

1) entering Hebrew-script parallel fields for Israeli corporate bodies 
appearing in Latin-script records for titles in English (current 
practice, at least occasionally or for some scripts)

and

2) entering Hebrew-script parallel fields for Israeli corporate bodies 
appearing in Cyrillic-script records for titles in Russian (not current 
practice for any scripts, as far as I know)

I think I would summarize current practice as: if a non-Latin parallel 
heading is entered, the heading/qualifiers must normally be in the 
script of the title being cataloged.  Except for bib. records for 
Latin-script titles, where the authorized form is already in the same 
script at the title cataloged and takes care of the need for a heading 
legible to the monolingual patron, so you can add a parallel heading in 
another script if you feel like it.  But I don't know how much sense 
that makes as a general principle.

Robert.