"Typis" in imprints translates to "with the types." See, C.G. Allen's A manual of European languages for librarians (2nd ed.), 1999, page 159; also Glossary of common Latin terms found in imprints of early modern printed books<Glossary%20of%20common%20Latin%20terms%20found%20in%20imprints%20of%20early%20modern%20printed%20books> (thanks, Bob!).

Regarding the amorphous personal vs corporate nature of booksellers and printing shops in the early modern period, the RBMS Bibliographical Standards Committee issued a statement on "Rules for Establishing Certain Names Associated with Printers," which was adopted by LC as rule interpretations to AACR2 22.2 (for 'Printers' Widows'), and 24.1A ('Printers') for treatment of personal vs corporate entities. In short, if the name is presented as a personal name, establish it as a personal name; if a formal collaboration, as a corporate name.

I'm guessing that the 410 references were made to give as much help as possible to people who aren't conversant with the early modern book trade, or to the cataloging conventions that govern the formulation of their names.
Deborah J Leslie (she/her) | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 East Capitol Street, S.E. Washington, DC 20003 | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Adam L Schiff
Sent: Tuesday, 3 December, 2019 14:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "Typi ..." vs "Typis ..." for printing house in 110/410


110 2# Johann Traeg (Firm)

Adam Schiff
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 11:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: "Typi ..." vs "Typis ..." for printing house in 110/410

My guess is that the "typis" instances (mostly in 410s) are a mix of grammatical errors by non-Latinists and references intended for non-Latinists who may be searching for the term as they found it on a source.

As for the second question--what is the proper way to handle a sole proprietorship, i.e., a person operating as a business? There appear to be lots of them among early publishers. As a person, the entity has an occupation. As a corporate body, it doesn't. As a person, the entity has birth and death dates. As a corporate body, it has activity dates. Name in inverted order for a person or direct order for a business? If I want to describe a person acting as a business entity in terms appropriate to a business entity, is there a preferred way to do that?


On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 11:15 AM Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
A quick browse of "Typi ..." and "Typis ..." in the NAF makes one wonder if there has been some confusion as regards which form we are supposed to use. The Latin word "Typi" (nom., plural) means "printing house." In most early publications, however, we only see Typis (ablative, plural), short for "ex Typis ..." = "from the Printing house of ...."

And, why are there so many such 410 references being used under 100, conflating business enterprises with individual persons? Should they be 510?

I cannot find any answers in RDA or PCC PS on either issue. Any suggestions or comments?


Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
170A Wilson Library (office)
160 Wilson Library (mail)
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242