Print

Print


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 Достоевский, Фёдор, ǂd 1821-1881. [taken from reference source; 
> not from resource at hand]
>
> 100 1 Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, ǂd 1821-1881.
>
> 240 10 ǂa Преступление и наказание. ǂl Hebrew [taken from reference 
> source; not from resource at hand]
>
> 240 10 ǂa Prestuplenie i nakazanie. ǂl Hebrew
>
> 245 11ǂa החטא וענשו : ǂb רומן בששה חלקים עם אפילוג / ǂc פ. מ. 
> דוסטויבדקי ; תרגם י. ח. ברנר.
>
> 245 13 ha-Ḥeṭ ṿe-ʻonesho : ǂb roman be-shishah ḥalaḳim ʻim epilog / ǂc 
> F.M. Dosṭoyevsḳi ; tirgem Y. Ḥ. 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.