Well, not to belabor the point, but I assume in the introd. Ferarri states that she has revised the thesis for commercial publication--that does not mean she has revised the Arab text, just that she has revised it somehow (abridged? updated? expanded? corrected?), so it is still a revision of the thesis she submitted to the univeristy. Stephen presumably has more precise information based on having the work in hand, or perhaps just info from some other source that this is a "revised" version of her thesis. And the 240 is correct under AACR2. Here at LC we do not upgrade records to RDA (if RDA can be considered an upgrade) if we are simply adding to or correcting an existing (non-RDA) record, so unless Stephen's library policy requires that, I would add the note and leave the rest of it as it is. (Yes, this is just one record, but would he change 5, 10, or 20 records to RDA standards if merely adding a death date or changing a form of name, etc.?)

  Sam Andrusko (retired, volunteer LC cataloger)

Also not a fan of $e's

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Gene Fieg <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:01 PM
To: [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
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.