You are absolutely correct. In this context, "Iohannis Channing" is in the genitive case, and needs to be expressed in the nominative when constructing the authority 100.
It's well known that if you go looking for something, you're likely to find it; so adventures concerning headings that appear to have been constructed in the genitive come as no real surprise. I wouldn't bark, though, at a 400 for a non-nominative form.
Gary L. Strawn, Authorities Librarian, etc.
Northwestern University Library, 1970 Campus Drive, Evanston IL 60208-2300
e-mail: [log in to unmask] voice: 847/491-2788 fax: 847/491-8306
Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit. BatchCat version: 2007.22.416
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Latin question on personal name
I ran into something that I think is probably an error, but I wanted to make sure before changing it. nr 91024583 is set up as Channing, Johannis, with a 400 for an English form. I found some dates that can be added to it.
I am cataloging a book with this 245 information: Rhazes De variolis et morbillis, arabice et latine : ǂb cvm aliis nonnvllis eivsdem argvmenti / ǂc cvra et impensis Iohannis Channing ...
So it’s a work by the medieval Arab writer Rhazes, edited (and translated?) by John Channing. The date is 1766. The person who set up the authority for Channing saw the usage Johannis for the given name and set the heading up with it. But doesn’t “cvra et impensis Iohannis Channing” mean “at the care and expense OF John Channing”? So Johannis seems to be a genitive form, and the nominative would most likely be Johannes, even though it’s unattested as far as I know. I realize that Johannis does occur as an undisputable part of some names, as apparently n 88028405 (Hardenbergh, Johannis G., for a Dutch-American farmer.) But for most writers who wrote in Latin, it seems incorrect.
Another example of this sort of error might be nb2010007680. Johannis is used in the 100 and Johannes in the 400. The 670 doesn’t give us enough information about the occurrence of Johannis, but from the bib record it may be from, OCLC # 751733627, it’s clear that it should be understood as a genitive.
I noticed another thing: sometimes a name heading is set up with Johannes in the 100 and Johannis in the 400. An example is nr 93031760. Is that necessary, since the –is form is a grammatical ending? And there is so little difference between “Johannes” and “Johannis” that it seems there is no access issue involved. It’s not like someone would fail to find the name if you didn’t include Johannis.
Thanks for any thoughts or information you might have on these matters.
UAB Lister Hill Library