Print

Print


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.
> 
>