Print

Print


If you get Arabic colleagues to supply Arabic-script parallel fields for 
your Cyrillic records, then I'm wrong and the text is fine as it is!  
I'm happy to let the issue rest.

Robert.

D. Brooking wrote:
>
> Robert said, "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."
>
> I think this is why I didn't understand the issue. Because it's not 
> our current practice. Actually, our practice here for Cyrillic anyway 
> is to always supply the non-latin parallel heading in the 
> language/script of the heading entity itself. That's why we supply 
> nothing for English or Czech name headings in a record. And why we 
> supply Bulgarian for a Bulgarian name, even if the title being 
> cataloged is in Russian or French.
>
> But if we have a Hebrew name or an Arabic name heading in a record for 
> a title in Russian or Serbian, then the Cyrillic catalogers usually 
> don't supply a parallel heading at all! (Because we are clueless in 
> Hebrew and Arabic.) But there are those instances where we get a 
> colleague to supply what's necessary if we think it is vital.
>
> (I don't know what our CJK catalogers are up to, though, they have a 
> completely separate shop...)
>
> So to make a long story short, I would be comfortable with the 
> language that's in there now, because it mirrors our current practice 
> here.
>
>
> ************
> 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 Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Robert Rendall wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>