You are correct about Johannes being the nominative form. However, because this author was active after 1400 and his name is found in the vernacular form in reference sources, he should have been established as Channing, John with a 400 for the Latin form, not the other way around (see AACR2 22.3B2 for names in the vernacular and Greek or Latin forms). Please change the 100 form to Channing, John with the dates you found, and make the Latin form as a 400. The online version of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography has an excellent article about Channing, including dates, under "Channing, John." If you have further questions about this issue, please feel free to email me if you like. Thanks!
Library of Congress
Policy and Standards Division
101 Independence Ave.
Washington, DC 20540-4305
Email: [log in to unmask]
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:48 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