Geresh is a punctuation mark, and don't we generally add punctuation marks
to our records so that they can be better understood?
In most cases, a colon generally does not appear on the item between the
place of publication and the publisher's name, but we include it there in
order to add context
But in both the roman and the nonroman field, and maybe ESPECIALLY in the
nonroman field, we are supposed to be transcribing what we see within subfields
demarcated by prescribed punctuation. There's no difference between roman and
nonroman regarding either prescribed (required) punctuation or
Some alternative approaches include:
Transcribing the entire chronogram followed by a bracketed Hebrew date
For complex chronograms in which only selected letters comprise the date, just
supply a bracketed Hebrew date. The entire chronogram could then be
transcribed (optionally) in a note.
I like this idea! And I'm quite willing to transcribe the whole chronogram in
a note--my only question is whether the SOURCE of the chronogram (Ps. 92:12
or the like)--not the CONTENT of the chronogram, whether or not it refers to
the content of the item or the author's name-- is
Perhaps the colon was a bad example. What I had in mind initially was that
the AACR2 states, Transcribe the title proper exactly as to wording, order,
and spelling, but not neccessarily as to punctuation and capitalization
(1.1B1). If this rule had an equal with regard to the Publication Area,
I haven't been following this discussion that closely,
but what is generally done in roman script books that
contain chronograms?
I would expect something like,
in the 260, having the chronogram transcribed with the
derived date in brackets,
with a 5xx describing the chronogram and how the date
I agree, but there's no reason why it can't be an optional note.
- Original Message -
From: Yossi Galron [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: heb-naco@lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: proposed draft RDA rule on 260s
I don't think adding the source is
IMHO, I do not think that *identifying* the source of the chronogram is
bibliographically significant, and would advise against incorprating this idea
into the rules, even on an optional basis.
My understanding is that we should be thinking in terms of recommendations that
make the rules
