See below.

D. Brooking wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">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.