It is a revision of the author's thesis.  There is no data to suggest the text commented upon was revised.  Would still get rid 240 since it is not the AAP for the thesis.

I think this would also be permissible under AACR2.  I did a lot of this for some Westminster commentaries and for commentaries translated fromGerman to English.

P.S.  not a big fan of $e.

Gene.


On Tuesday, July 11, 2017, Still Thinking <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Gene and Stephen,


    The work in question was not cataloged as a commentary, but rather as an edition (which is why it was entered under Abū al-Faraj ʻAbd Allāh ibn al-Tayyib). Although the 240 is incorrect under RDA, it was correct under AACR2.  If it had been considered a commentary, it would have been entered under Ferrari.


The rest of your advice is correct if Stephen is also upgrading the entire record to RDA standards; otherwise, unless he is supposed to upgrade all such records to RDA, well, he should simply add the correct form of note (see below: editor, not author) and leave it be unless he is going to examine the work in hand.  (If so, then he would also add some $e's next to her name (Ferrari, $e editor, $e translator, ....; and $e author next to Tayyib)

   

   The correct form of a note for something like this would be: Revision of the editor's thesis ... etc. She both edited, translated and commented upon Tayyib's work,  but as I wrote above, unless he is going to upgrade the entire record to RDA, well, just add the note and leave it be.

   Sam

P.S. If one wants to quibble about "editor," then just use Revision of the translator's thesis .... Saying "Revision of the translator and commentator's thesis" seems a bit too awkward to me.


  




From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]');" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Gene Fieg <[log in to unmask]');" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 3:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]');" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Requesting language expression authority help on lccn 2006047541 OCLC 69645840 : Arabic commentary on Aristotle, a revision of a dissertation
 
Just a few ideas here, even though my Arabic is zero, too.

First of all, somewhere in RDA we are to determine what the item in hand actually is.  In this case, it is denoted as a commentary.  So I would say that the 240 in the record is not correct.  It should be replaced with two 700 12s, one for the Arabic text and the other for the German one.  As I understand this sort of thing, both are expressions and need $l.

You need only the Arabic form of the text, which will be the same (hopefully) always.  It is not the AAP, uniform title for the dissertation.  So add the revision note, if the German Vorwort makes it necessary (use of very uberarbeiten (?)), remove the 240, add two 700 12s

Gene Fieg



On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Stephen Early <[log in to unmask]');" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I have been asked to add a “revision of author’s dissertation” note to the master record of “Der Kategorienkommentar von Abu l-Farag Abdallah ibn at-Tayyib : Text und Untersuchungen / von Cleophea Ferrari” lccn   2006047541, OCLC #69645840 .

A one minute project – except:

This record contains a dreaded “double language” 240 with corresponding NAF record:

n 2006041817

ARN 6952310

Abu al-Faraj Abd Allah ibn al-Tayyib, -1043. Tafsir Kitab al-maqulat. German & Arabic

 

Since my Arabic knowledge is zero, I was wondering if a PCC/NACO holding library with the proper language expertise would be kind enough to take care of the authority work for this? I see Yale and Princeton in the 040 in addition to LC.

 

I could then follow-up with the dissertation note (which is based on information in the first paragraph of the “Vorwort”)

 

 

Stephen T. Early

Cataloger

Center for Research Libraries

6050 S. Kenwood

Chicago, IL  60637

773-955-4545 x326

[log in to unmask]');" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]

CRL website: www.crl.edu