Hi again, Lenore.
After re-reading my comments from yesterday, it occurs to me that I may
have presumed too much. Specifically, in my "conclusion" (see
below) I had asked whether people thought it might "be better to
endorse the proposal as is, with the understanding that LC/PCC would
likely not
Thanks, Bernard.
I had the same thought when I was preparing the draft. I hesitated making
the change at the time since I was quoting verbatim from an email
message, but I think readability and grammar are important, and I'll
alter the wording as you suggest.
/ Daniel
At 03:20 PM 8/21/2006, you
Hi Bob,
I think that Mag''ar is a possibility ([:apostrophe: after the "g"; "ayin
diacritic' before the "a"] and make a reference from Mig''ar. LC has taken
the opposite approach however, in nar n 96112047.
In situations like this, I recommend that if you dont have a romanized form
of the name,
Title: romanization q
i think you are fine with
Mag'ar.
David
David G. Hirsch
Librarian for Middle Eastern Studies
Charles E. Young Research Library
11630C
Box 951575
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +1-310-825-2930
Fax: +1-310-825-6795
efax: +1-707-313-7712
Dear Lenore,
Thank you for this very helpful feedback. You've raised several points
that need to considered carefully before I report back to CCDA.
1. RDA rules and options are one thing; LC/PCC implementation is another.
Once the options are in place, LC/PCC may end up continuing to do what
it's
The heh-yod-tsadi-gershayim-tet, as a whole, is supposed to represent the word
yahrzeit and therefore there is no 9
My two cents
BR
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Yossi
Galron
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:50 PM
To: Heb-NACO
Subject: From
