From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 8:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Question on distinguishing two works with same name
It seems to me that the qualifiers (Persian) and (Arabic) for the two works would still cause certain confusion to library users who have no direct access to the authority records. Even given
as references, Mantiq (Persian) would still be mistakenly construe as “Mantiq. $l Persian” and Mantiq (Arabic) as “Mantique. $l Arabic).”
So, as an alternative, perhaps you could also consider if the following would work:
100 0# Avicenna, ǂd 980-1037. ǂt Manṭiq (Shifāʼ.1)
100 0# Avicenna, ǂd 980-1037. ǂt Manṭiq (Dānishnāmah-ʼi ʻAlāʼī. 1)
The current authority record (n 90647360) appears to have confused the two works as one. If so, based on your research and analysis, why not consider contributing two brand new name/title records,
and mark the old record for deletion by LC [on the ground that you need to suppress this
The article on Avicenna’s works in Encyc. Iran. is very informative and helpful!
Just my 2 cents. Do let us know what your final decision will be.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Shorten, Jay
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 2:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Question on distinguishing two works with same name
I need input on a new authority record I need to create.
I found that the authority record for
n 90647360 Avicenna,
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
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
are also in a similar situation.)
After reading through RDA and the policy statements, I propose to keep
for the more well-known Arabic work, and construct the authority record for the Persian work as
ǂt Manṭiq (Persian)
with variant access points for Risālah-i manṭiq and Dānishnāmah-ʼi
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?
Cataloger, Monographs and Electronic Resources
Associate Professor of Bibliography
Description & Access Department
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]