Hi all, I’m trying to understand how to best parse HCM2’s recommendation vis a vis the PCC practice for Alternative (1st) … : 2.5.2, p. 16. “If the date of publication is represented only in Hebrew letters, the numbers must be rendered in Western-style Arabic numerals.” One example is then given for “715 [1954 or 1955]” in both the vernacular and romanized 264 fields. (HCM2, p. 37) Before that, though, the LC practice for Alternative (1st) states: … generally supply non-Latin scripts for the languages/scripts …: …Hebrew, Yiddish, … . If following minimal level cataloguing guidelines, the records for these languages/scripts may be fully romanized.” (HCM2, p. 36-37)
I have in front of me the following in the source: מהדורה ראשונה, אדר ב', תשע"ד, 2014 We take dates following ed. statements to be pub. dates, but in this case our date of publication is NOT “represented only in Hebrew letters”, so do we follow the PCC practice on 2.5.2 and render the date in Arabic numerals? Also, as per the LC practice, we are to supply the non-Latin scripts. But we are following more than minimal level cataloguing, so should they be romanized? My vernacular 250 is מהדורה 1.; is the vernacular 264_1 אדר 2., 774 = 2014 or אדר ב' תשע"ד = 2014 (The romanized 264_1 is Adar 2., 774 [March 2014] = 2014, with fixed fields DtSt=e, Date 1=2014, Date 2=03.) Please advise. Thanks, Jasmin --- Jasmin Shinohara Hebraica Cataloging Librarian University of Pennsylvania Van Pelt-Dietrich Library Center 3420 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-6206 T. 215-746-6397 F. 215-573-9610 jsh...@upenn.edu
_______________________________________________ Heb-naco mailing list Heb-naco@lists.osu.edu https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/listinfo/heb-naco
