I need input on a new authority record I need to create.


I found that the authority record for

n  90647360 Avicenna, ǂd 980-1037. ǂt Manṭiq

has confused two separate works of the same name. One was originally written in Arabic, and was part 1 of his larger work Shifāʼ. Some of this was translated into Latin in the Middle Ages. The other was originally written in Persian, and was part 1 of his larger work Dānishnāmah-ʼi ʻAlāʼī. This was never translated into Latin. (Source: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/avicenna-xi) The two are not translations of each other, though the Persian one has the same theme. (The other two extant parts of Dānishnāmah-ʼi ʻAlāʼī are also in a similar situation.)


After reading through RDA and the policy statements, I propose to keep “Manṭiq” for the more well-known Arabic work, and construct the authority record for the Persian work as

Avicenna, ǂd 980-1037. ǂt Manṭiq (Persian)

with variant access points for Risālah-i manṭiq  and Dānishnāmah-ʼi ʻAlāʼī. ǂn 1, ǂp Manṭiq .


I also plan to add Manṭiq (Arabic) as a variant to Manṭiq, and will add 667 “Do not confuse…” notes. Is there anything else that I should be thinking of?


Jay Shorten

Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources

Associate Professor of Bibliography

Description & Access Department

University Libraries

University of Oklahoma

Co-ordinator, Oklahoma (Tornado) NACO Funnel

Co-owner, PERSNAME-L, the list about personal names in bibliographic and authority records

[log in to unmask]