Print

Print


I wouldn't mind punting on translation issues as Peter suggests. Not sure 
if we have moved on from this point now though.

I can't find anything that recent in Google docs. Is there one place where 
I can go to see the current state of the doc??




************
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 Fri, 19 Mar 2010, Fletcher, Peter wrote:

> 
> I think the issues with translations bring up some problems with consistency and more. I think I will create at the beginning of 2.5
> stating that translations are not covered here: ?Translations: translations are not covered in this section of the document due to problems
> and inconsistencies in records requiring two or more scripts and problems with balancing the needs of local users vs. consistency in
> national cataloging practice.?
> 
>  
> 
> Comments?
> 
>  
> 
> I?ll remove the translation examples.
> 
>  
> 
> peter
> 
>  
> 
> From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Rendall
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 12:16 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Non Latin document final check
> 
>  
> 
> Responses below.
> 
> Fletcher, Peter wrote:
> 
> Translations are not a false problem, we've just sidestepped the issue by giving examples only of translations into English.  We still
> don't have guidelines for translations e.g. from Russian into Hebrew.  Probably the parallel 100 and 245 should be in Hebrew script and
> the 240 with the transliterated Russian original title should just be left unpaired, but I don't think we necessarily have to tackle that
> now.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Well, with translations from Russian to Hebrew, the parallel non-Latin 130 or 240 should reflect the original language of the title, in
> this case, Russian, so the principles are the same as for English translations. We need to understand that in these cases, the data cannot
> be taken from the piece in hand, just as is the case for English translations. By stating that the non-Latin data field must be in the
> language of the heading (title, name, etc.), it is made clear. Perhaps we can just say ?must be in the language of the heading?.
> 
>  
> 
> Is this not what we want:
> 
> 100 1 ???????????, ?????, ?d1821-1881. [taken from reference source; not from resource at hand]
> 
> 100 1 Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, ?d1821-1881.
> 
> 240 10 ?a???????????? ? ?????????. ?lHebrew [taken from reference source; not from resource at hand]
> 
> 240 10 ?aPrestuplenie i nakazanie. ?lHebrew
> 
> 245 11?a ???? ????? : ?b???? ???? ????? ?? ?????? / ?c?.?.?????????? ; ???? ?.?.????.
> 
> 245 13 ha-H?et? v?e-?onesho : ?broman be-shishah h?alak?im ?im epilog / ?cF.M. Dost?oyevsk?i ; tirgem Y. H?. Brener.
> 
>  
> 
> Since time is short, and if we cannot agree, I am willing to also state that translations are not covered by our guidelines.
>  
> 
> 
> No, I don't think that's what we want.  I think we want the 100 to be in Hebrew for Hebrew-speaking catalog users looking at the record
> for this Hebrew-language title, and if so then what to do with the 240 is a dilemma.
> 
>   
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Transliteration is not the same as romanization.  The definition we're giving applies to transliteration in general; romanization is
> specifically transliteration into Latin script.
> 
>  
> 
> ok to  remove the ?synonymous? statement.
> 
> 
> and add a separate definition for each.
> 
> 
> I would like to omit the Xun yi cao no chun tian example.  It's an example of a cataloger-provided translation (or something), which has
> nothing to do with what we're talking about in this section.
> 
> 
> Which section?
> 
> 
> 2.3.1. Mixed Script Descriptive Fields
> 
> If we want an example of Chinese and Japanese in the same field we could use something simpler like the 245 in OCLC #252480272, where the
> Japanese can only be read as Japanese and the Chinese can only be read as Chinese.
> 
> 
> "The headings must be in the language/script of the body, person, or title":  we need to think about this more.  Otherwise we'll have
> Cyrillic parallel headings for Russian corporate bodies in Hebrew records, etc.  I think current practice is that the headings must be in
> the script of the title cataloged, except in records for titles in Latin script, where we sometimes provide non-Latin parallel-script
> fields for non-Latin headings.
> 
>  
> 
> I don?t understand. That is what you would want. Russian corporate bodies are established in Russian (i.e., Cyrillic), not Hebrew, so the
> parallel non-Latin heading will be in Cyrillic, even in a record for a Hebrew translation. If it was a Hebrew body, then it would be in
> Hebrew script. I know that a lot of Hebraica catalogers may be doing this (e.g. providing Hebrew or Yiddish parallel heading for Russian
> headings, etc.), but do we want to provide this option?
> 
> 
> Again, this isn't what I want.  I've never seen Hebrew script entered in a Cyrillic record or vice versa.  And what would a Russian- or
> Hebrew-speaking patron make of that?  I think this would fall under the category of inventing new practices, and I don't think we should
> do that. 
> 
> Robert.
> 
> 
>