While there are valid reasons to object to having a language of a work, this is not one of them.  If you don’t know the language of the original expression of a work, obviously you don’t enter it.  Representative expression is an attribute at the expression level, not the work level.  It identifies whether an expression is considered representative of the work.  If we don’t know the original language, then we can’t specify any known expression as representative.  Having a representative expression is not mandatory.


                                                                                Steve McDonald

                                                                                [log in to unmask]



From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 2:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] wondering about a NAR for a motion picture


Using language for a work caught my attention.  In modern times we might know what the original language of the piece was.  Not so much for ancient works.  A couple of examples.  Some sermons, many really, from the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus) and/or John Chrysostom are only known in the Georgian language.  Presumably, they are translations from the original Greek, but....

Another example would be Origen's De principiis (Peri archon).  Most of what we have in English is translated from Rufinus' translation from the Greek.  (Fortunately, we do have Greek fragment or two of the work).

So perhaps the rush to add a language to a "work" should be slowed until we consider all of the literature that has come down to us.  Some of it, we may not know what the original language was.  Even authorship may be in doubt.  We should be a little less chronocentric about what we think we really know about how literature, human lore was created.


Gene Fieg


On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 5:47 AM, Adam L. Schiff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I think it's ok to use the LCGFT term for a single work in a 380 field.  In my opinion, the scope note only applies to this term when using it as a genre/form access point in field 655.


377 should not be used in NARs for works, as the element is language of expression.  There is no RDA element language of work.  I don't know if this will change when RDA is revised to accommodate the new LRM, which is going to have an attribute for representative expression (e.g., the language originally expressed).


As for a foreign language film known also by an English title, I think it is permissible to include a variant access point for that.  It all depends on whether the film work is known by an English title or if the English title applies only to an English expression (English dubbing in most cases).  Both the work and the expression could have the same 430, since NARs may have the same variant access point.


Adam Schiff

University of Washington Libraries

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Ian Fairclough <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2017 5:41:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: wondering about a NAR for a motion picture


Dear PCCLIST readers,


I'm wondering about adding field 380 Motion pictures $2 lcgft to a NAR for a motion picture that I'm updating to RDA.  The LCGFT record (gf2011026406) has in field 680:  Collections of films that are composed of multiple genres and/or forms to which more specific headings such as ǂa Nonfiction films ǂi or ǂa Comedy films ǂi cannot be applied. 


Since this record uses "collections" is it appropriate to add the heading to a NAR that is for an individual motion picture?  If not, is there a more appropriate LCGFT that should be used?


I’m also wondering about the references in fields 430.  These would more properly go on a NAR for an English-language translation.  But I don't have a translation: the film was not translated, but rather was released with subtitles. Nor do I have the film; rather, I have a book *about* the film, to which the author refers consistently as Arabian Nights.


I also wondered about including field 377 with a language code. However, according to MARC Authority 377 - Associated Language


this field is used with "a person, organization, or family" rather than a work/expression.


The record in question is n  96047189. Below is a draft of my update.  Any comments are welcome, whether on the list or directly to me.


Sincerely - Ian


Ian Fairclough

Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian

George Mason University


[log in to unmask]


010  n  96047189

040  DLC ǂb eng ǂe rda ǂc DLC ǂd DLC

046  ǂk 1974 ǂ2 edtf

130 0Fiore delle mille e una notte (Motion picture)

380  Motion pictures ǂ2 lcgft

430 0Arabian nights (Motion picture : 1974)

430 0Flower of the thousand and one nights

5001 ǂi Director: ǂa Pasolini, Pier Paolo, ǂd 1922-1975 ǂw r

670  Rumble, P. Allegories of contamination, c1996: ǂb p. 179 (Il fiore delle mille e una notte, motion picture written and directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini, released 1974)

670  Moon, Michael, 1950- Arabian nights, 2016: ǂb page 15 (Il fiore delle mille e una notte = The flower of the thousand and one nights; in the US under the title Arabian nights, 1980, Italian with English subtitles; director, Pier Paolo Pasolini)