Print

Print


I realized that we probably need an explanation for our translation
"policy" in the report document (not the guidelines themselves). So,
perhaps this might do:

Translations not covered: the task group could not agree on guidelines
for translations that would be from one non-Latin script to another.
Some favored using the language/script associated with uniform title or
name as the basis for the parallel non-Latin data, while others favored
using the language/script of the translated resource at hand (It was
noted that in some communities, the latter is the general practice). The
latter practice would enable local users to search the name or uniform
title in the local language script regardless of whether or not it is
the language/script associated with the heading. The former practice
would always require the non-Latin data for the name or uniform title be
in the language/script associated with the heading. This issue needs
more investigation and agreement among the various cataloging, language
communities.


Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Fletcher, Peter
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 12:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCTG1] Peter's translation suggestion

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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>