Personally, I'd consider 'Authorized Version' to be a relative term, and always understood the generic, universally recognizable term for the 1611 translation to be the King James Bible. I presume there's an academic (and presumably C of E) understanding of 'Authorized Version' as being the formal term for the KJB, but I doubt it's more universal than that. Still, would you go for the formal designation, even if it's religion specific?
Best wishes Martin Kelleher Metadata Manager University of Liverpool -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Malcolm Jones Sent: 16 May 2013 14:07 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] "Authorized Version" (6.23.2.9.2) In England, the expression Authorised Version, often simply AV. certainly means the version published in 1611, (also known as the King James Bible) irrespective of the religious denomination of the speaker/writer. Others more familiar than I can speak of N. American usage, but I have always understood that the above practice was common throughout the English speaking world. Is not the German issue one of orthography? In German, nouns must have a capital letter, but adjectives may not. Hence it is impossible to translate the English usage without creating the ambiguity, at leat to an anglophone mind. German speakers may tell us whether or not it is an issue there. Rev'd Malcolm Jones St. Richard's Vicarage Hailsham Road Heathfield East Sussex TN21 8AF tel: 01435 862744 mobile: 07799265097 malc...@peri.co.uk www.peri.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller Sent: 16 May 2013 13:21 To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] "Authorized Version" (6.23.2.9.2) RDA 6.23.2.9.2 says: "For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon, record the brief citation form of the Authorized Version as a subdivision of the preferred title for the Bible." Is my interpretation correct that "Authorized Version" here is not meant in a general sense of "some standard version", but rather as a reference to a specific English version of the Bible, namely the King James Bible? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_Version I'm asking because I've just noticed that "of the Authorized Version" has been translated into German as "der autorisierten Version" (i.e. "of the authorized version", in a general descriptive sense, not as a specific title). This makes it sound as if it was some unspecified, somehow authorized version, which doesn't sound right to me. Also, it wouldn't be helpful as it doesn't tell us who is supposed to do the authorizing (the agency?) and according to which criteria. The French, on the other hand, seem to have deliberately - and, I'd say, very reasonably - changed the meaning: "Pour les livres du canon catholique ou protestant, enregistrer une forme brève du titre du livre consacré par l'usage en français comme subdivision du titre privilégié de la Bible." So, they explicitly state that the title of the book should follow French usage. I think 6.23.2.9.2 should be adapted to make it really "international", e.g. by saying "record the title of the book according to a standard version of the Bible in the language and script preferred by the agency". Heidrun -- --------------------- Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A. Stuttgart Media University Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi
