Print

Print


If I'm really the only person who has trouble with translations, then I 
won't mind if we remove all references to "translations are not covered" 
from the guidelines and report and put the simple examples we had 
earlier back in.  If this is a nonissue for most people we shouldn't 
complicate our report by making it one.

Robert.

Fletcher, Peter wrote:
> Yes #402662369 is how I supposed things would normally be done ...
>
> We may get feedback from SCS, I don't know, but they may not understand
> our trouble with translations. We'll see. 
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Robert Rendall
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 2:50 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion
>
> Yes, as I said earlier, not everything with a Russian or Arabic 
> corporate body in a 710 is necessarily a translation from Russian or 
> Arabic.  Or see for example the 610 in OCLC #53475867.  But if we've 
> decided that the preferred practice is to enter all headings in the 
> language of the body, person, or title, and the Hebrew practice that 
> made sense to me is exceptional, then not even translations are a 
> problem any more.  After all, I just found OCLC #402662369, and that's a
>
> PCC record created right here at Columbia.
>
> Robert.
>
> D. Brooking wrote:
>   
>> I am not sure if this makes a difference at this point or not, but the
>>     
>
>   
>> assumption that if we have eliminated translations, we have eliminated
>>     
>
>   
>> this issue is not true.
>>
>> For example, a work that is originally in Russian, but two of the 
>> editors are Ukrainian and their names are set up in Ukrainian 
>> (romanized). You need to choose the *Ukrainian* macro to get the 
>> correct Cyrillic, not the Russian. There may be many reasons the 
>> authorized form of a name does not match the language of the resource 
>> itself. The problem is much more frequent with translations, but by no
>>     
>
>   
>> means unknown for non-translations.
>>
>> We still may not want to figure out the solution to this, but we need 
>> to be aware that it's not just translations vs. non-translations.
>>
>>
>>
>> ************
>> 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 Wed, 24 Mar 2010, Fletcher, Peter wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Ok, sorry about the miscommunication. I think I want to convey that
>>>       
> the
>   
>>> script must be that of the heading, as opposed to the resource being
>>> cataloged in 2.5.2.1, but now since we have eliminated translations
>>>       
> it
>   
>>> is a moot point since there is only one language involved and the
>>> language of the headings is the same as the resource being cataloged.
>>>
>>> So, I think your point is well taken for 2.5.2.2.
>>>
>>> And the wording in 2.5.2.1 can stay as:
>>>
>>> "The headings must be in the language/script of the body, person, or
>>> title, and the form entered can be derived from the resource itself
>>>       
> or
>   
>>> if necessary from a standard reference source in the language/script
>>>       
> of
>   
>>> the heading."
>>>
>>> I suppose there are occasions where we can over think a problem.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>>> Behalf Of David W Reser
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:25 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion
>>>
>>> Peter--  I was only actually complaining about the wording about
>>> qualifiers (2.5.2.2), didn't really have a problem with 2.5.2.1 (the
>>> same may not be true of other commenters).
>>>
>>> As for 2.5.2.1, I could live with what was there, or live with
>>>       
> removing
>   
>>> the second sentence, but I don't think the replacement text "**The
>>> language/script used must be the one associated with the heading.** "
>>> actually says anything, or at least could be open to many
>>> interpretations.
>>>
>>> Sorry not to be clearer earlier.
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>>>> "Fletcher, Peter" <[log in to unmask]> 3/24/2010 3:05 PM
>>>>>>             
>>> Sorry, I should have pointed out where these texts come from in the
>>>       
> doc.
>   
>>> You are right about the location of the qualifiers example, the other
>>> part comes from 2.5.2.1.
>>>
>>> With your suggestion 2.5.2.1 would read:
>>>
>>> "Non-Latin data may be supplied in parallel fields for headings
>>> established in non-standard romanization or in a conventional
>>> Latin-script form. When possible, prefer a non-Latin form that
>>> corresponds most closely to the authorized Latin form."
>>>
>>> What about:
>>>
>>> "Non-Latin data may be supplied in parallel fields for headings
>>> established in non-standard romanization or in a conventional
>>> Latin-script form. **The language/script used must be the one
>>>       
> associated
>   
>>> with the heading.** Prefer a non-Latin form that corresponds most
>>> closely to the authorized Latin form."
>>>
>>>
>>> and at 2.5.2.2 it could be left as David suggests:
>>>
>>> "In non-Latin parallel fields, cataloger-created qualifiers may be
>>> entered in a non-Latin form. When possible, prefer a non-Latin form
>>>       
> that
>   
>>> corresponds most closely to the authorized Latin form of the
>>>       
> qualifier."
>   
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>>> Behalf Of David W Reser
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 6:15 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion
>>>
>>> So, if we are having too much difficulty trying to put parameters on
>>> what qualifiers should look like in an optional approach (correct me
>>>       
> if
>   
>>> I'm wrong that we're talking about 2.5.2.2. here), maybe we should
>>>       
> just
>   
>>> omit the statement "The qualifiers must be in the language/script of
>>>       
> the
>   
>>> heading itself, and the form entered can be derived from the
>>>       
> resource,
>   
>>> or if necessary from a standard reference source in the
>>>       
> language/script
>   
>>> of the heading."  The point of the option was that you could use
>>> non-Latin qualifiers in the optional approach (which the first
>>>       
> sentence
>   
>>> already says).  Leave it at that?
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>       
>>>>>> "Fletcher, Peter" <[log in to unmask]> 3/23/2010 7:28 PM
>>>>>>             
>>> No kidding.
>>>
>>> I think the problem with the statements:
>>>
>>> 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 [...]
>>>
>>> is that what I meant to say is the language of the "heading" itself,
>>> which can be a body, person, or title (730, 240, 130). Would it be
>>> clearer to say "headings must be in the language of the heading
>>>       
> itself"?
>   
>>> This way you don't get confused about whether or not the script is
>>>       
> taken
>   
>>> from the piece at hand.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>>> Behalf Of Robert Rendall
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 2:19 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>
>