"Blessed are they who have nothing to say and who cannot be persuaded to say it."
The meta-quote I gathered from the erstwhile NewsScan Daily. I have no way of knowing the accuracy of the quote or even if Lowell ever uttered it. The internet must have any number of apocryphal attributions from actual figures (I'm thinking Albert Einstein). Subscription quote collections that I've checked do not have it.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Little Bo-Peep: A Cataloging Controversy?
Were nursery rhyme characters treated as authors, how might their names be represented in the author field (100)?
Someone such as "Jack Sprat" or "Tommy Tucker" would be straightforward:
100 1 Sprat, Jack
100 1 Tucker, Tommy.
I doubt if a birth date (delimiter d) could be found for either.
For Old King Cole, the descriptive "old" may be omitted from the cataloging record, with "King" going into the personal titles sub-field (delimiter c) and "Cole" treated as a single forename.
100 0 Cole, |c King.
Simple Simon would be simpler, a single forename without a title:
100 0 Simon.
The same would apply to "Mary, Mary, quite contrary," assuming there are not two distinct Marys, in which case it would be hoped there could be found a way to qualify both names. If not, they might as well be identical twins, for their separate publications could be ascribed to either author.
The most problematic designated of a nursery character could well be Little Bo-Peep. One may first unaffix the "little" as a description not baptismally related to the name. If the hyphen between "Bo" and "Peep" is official, then the author field would be another instance of a single forename:
100 0 Bo-Peep.
However, if "Peep" is regarded as a surname and "Bo" a forename, then the field would read
100 1 Peep, Bo.
It depends on how much credence one gives to the hyphen.
Someone such as "Jack Sprat" or "Tommy Tucker" would be straightforward:
100 1 Sprat, Jack
100 1 Tucker, Tommy.
I doubt if a birth date (delimiter d) could be found for either.
For Old King Cole, the descriptive "old" may be omitted from the cataloging record, with "King" going into the personal titles sub-field (delimiter c) and "Cole" treated as a single forename.
100 0 Cole, |c King.
Simple Simon would be simpler, a single forename without a title:
100 0 Simon.
The same would apply to "Mary, Mary, quite contrary," assuming there are not two distinct Marys, in which case it would be hoped there could be found a way to qualify both names. If not, they might as well be identical twins, for their separate publications could be ascribed to either author.
The most problematic designated of a nursery character could well be Little Bo-Peep. One may first unaffix the "little" as a description not baptismally related to the name. If the hyphen between "Bo" and "Peep" is official, then the author field would be another instance of a single forename:
100 0 Bo-Peep.
However, if "Peep" is regarded as a surname and "Bo" a forename, then the field would read
100 1 Peep, Bo.
It depends on how much credence one gives to the hyphen.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
As I Was Saying
I have a collection of my blog writings. It is a single item. A quote. Not mine. (It is on the previous date.)
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Quote: Nathaniel Hawthorne
"The world owes all its onward impulses to men ill at ease." (From The House of the Seven Gables)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)