Responses below.

Fletcher, Peter wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

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.

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

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.

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

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.

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

"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.