Print

Print


Well, at least my assertion that "nobody does this" was wrong!  I was 
waiting for someone to contradict me...

I'm happy to start thinking in terms of wrapping up now rather than 
raising any more problems!  It's been a long ride.

R.

D. Brooking wrote:
> Well, this is just one library's practice in some of its non-Latin 
> units. So I wouldn't say you are "wrong."
>
> Part of the problem with these guidelines is that it is up to *us* to 
> suggest what is wrong and right now. But I think no one is up for 
> diverging too much from what is current practice, given the 
> uncertainties that we've already discussed in many places. But even 
> determining what is current practice is not straighforward at all!
>
>
>
>
> ************
> 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:
>
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>