Dear Colleagues,
I have been advised that a task force has been created to review the proposed Romanization
tables for Ancient and Modern Greek. Our own Tony Oddo has been appointed to serve as well
as new CoHSL list members David Jenkins and Robert Rendall. Below is the message I sent to
them yesterday, and I am sharing with this list so that we can get as much information as
possible out there to get the conversation going.
Thanks to Jeff Luttrell for sharing as well. Time is running out—we need to get our
talking points in order so that our respective institutions can respond by the March 31st
deadline.
Rhea
From: Lesage, Rhea
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 3:42 PM
To: Robert Rendall; Oddo, Anthony
Cc: David T. Jenkins; Helen F. Schmierer; Robert Maxwell; Johnston, George (johnstg);
Lesage, Rhea
Subject: RE: Greek Romanization
Dear members of the CC:DA Task Force for the Review of the Proposed Romanization Tables
(2009) for Ancient and Modern Greek:
Tony Oddo has advised me that your group has been formed to assess the proposed changes to
the tables. I would like to address Robert Rendall’s assertion that LC’s plans are to omit
the h for items cataloged after 2009. My reading of the proposed table and the LC message
that Hiatt sent do not say this, but rather that a retrospective conversion project will
be in order, the likes of Wade-Giles/Pinyin (but on a smaller scale). I understand (and
previous conversations with Hiatt confirmed) that all items published and cataloged after
1982 would have to be changed to reflect the “new” orthography.
According to LC’s statement “Elimination of this practice meant there would be an impact
on headings. The division envisioned that headings would be revised as necessary on the
first occurrence of cataloging a resource in monotonic Greek. As is the policy (AACR2,
24.2C and LCRI 24.2C), headings romanized from languages having undergone orthographic
reform are revised to reflect the new orthography with reference from the form in the old
orthography.”
I have asked LC for numbers so that we can get a handle on what kind of project is
involved. Even if Robert is correct that LC intends to implement the change to items
cataloged after 2009 how will this change be implemented? Those of you who are familiar
with the language must certainly understand that dropping the “ h” for the rough breathing
will mean changing every authority and bibliographic record that contains Hetaireia,
Hidryma, Hellada, Historia (all forms), Hellenike (all forms), Hygeia, Hyprourgeio, Hiera,
to name just a few examples. We are looking at a retrospective conversion project at a
time when no one has the resources to do so.
The addition of the “h” for rough breathing is indeed an outdated practice and LC
obviously wants to correct their error that they never implemented the change in 1982. I
would be willing to support this change (dropping the h for rough breathing) if it can be
done in a planned and coordinated manner, certainly not in the way LC is suggesting, one
record at a time! LC has not responded to my request for numbers or their plans for
implementation.
Please feel free to join the CoHSL listserv for further information on this topic:
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/cohsl-list , or to contact me with any
questions.
Rhea K. Lesage
Rhea K. Lesage
Head and Bibliographer for Modern Greek
Modern Greek Section
Collection Development
Widener Library Room G60
Harvard College Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
USA
(office) 617.495.3632
(facsimile) 617.496.8704
*******************************************************************************************************************************************************
This is CoHSL's response to LC's proposed tables, not to the ideas we've
been talking about. Under LC's plans the h would only be omitted in bibliographic
records for Modern Greek titles in monotonic orthography cataloged after 2009, and
existing authority records would be revised one by one as they came up in new cataloging
only. Modern Greek files would be permanently split with some romanized records including
the h and others omitting it.
I don't think anyone outside LC thinks that is acceptable - we didn't even
include it as one of our three "options." We've been talking mostly about
option #1, where we would essentially abolish the h and try to retroactively remove it
from all existing Modern Greek (language code gre) bib. records and from the corresponding
authority records. Ancient Greek records (language code grc), including modern editions
of ancient and Byzantine texts, would not be affected.
This is a very different model and I think it would need a new response from CoHSL.
Robert.
From: Robert Rendall [mailto:rr2205@columbia.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:51 AM
To: Oddo, Anthony
Cc: David T. Jenkins; Helen F. Schmierer; Robert Maxwell; Johnston, George (johnstg);
Lesage, Rhea
Subject: Re: Greek Romanization
I'm not sure there are any practical options substantially different from these three
(I don't think romanizing titles in Modern Greek describing or related to the ancient
period using the Ancient Greek scheme would be a practical option), but more input
can't hurt.
Robert.
Oddo, Anthony wrote:
I agree partially with David…this was my original concern…are these the only three
options? …I said yesterday that I supported #1 more or less but I was thinking about this
last night and I would like to hear from others on the Hellenic Studies list so I have
passed the options to the Consortium for Hellenic Studies Librarians’ list moderator to
hopefully get some comments back from the membership…I will speak with her later today….I
am sorry to say but I think it is a bit premature to write a report…..comments, Tony
From: David T. Jenkins [mailto:dj3@Princeton.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:08 AM
To: Robert Rendall
Cc: Oddo, Anthony; Helen F. Schmierer; Robert Maxwell; Johnston, George (johnstg)
Subject: RE: Greek Romanization
Maybe option #1 isn’t as clear as I thought. The way I’m understanding it, Robert’s
example, “Anagnōstikon tēs archaias Hellēnikēs historias,” (assuming it was published
after 1453) would be transliterated in option #1 as “Anagnōstikon tēs archaias
Ellēnikēs istorias.” It’s not clear to me why any word from a post-1453 imprint
describing or related to the ancient period would be transliterated using the pre-1453
scheme. In the same sense, the title “Peri tinōn Homērikōn epithetōn eis Apollō
anēkontōn,” published in 1930, would be transliterated as “Peri tinōn Omērikōn
epithetōn eis Apollō anēkontōn,” even though Homer is an ancient author. The English
authority heading “Homer” would remain, but the transcription from the title would follow
the post-1453 scheme. Nevertheless, the strangeness of seeing “Ellēnikēs istorias” did
cause our catalogers to pause and in their minds kept option #3 (keep the status quo with
no exceptions) on the table.
Dave
----------------------
David Jenkins
Librarian for Classics, Hellenic Studies and Linguistics
Princeton University
B-17P-1 Firestone Library
One Washington Road
Princeton, NJ 08544-2098
Tel: 609-258-5811
Fax: 609-258-6950
Email: dj3@princeton.edu<mailto:dj3@princeton.edu>
From: Robert Rendall [mailto:rr2205@columbia.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 4:21 PM
To: David T. Jenkins
Cc: Oddo, Anthony; Helen F. Schmierer; Robert Maxwell; Johnston, George (johnstg)
Subject: Re: Greek Romanization
And hopefully we can avoid converting
Anagnōstikon tēs archaias Hellēnikēs historias = A reader of ancient Greek history
to
Anagnōstikon tēs archaias Ellēnikēs istorias = A reader of ancient Greek istory
Robert.
David T. Jenkins wrote:
Right, “retrospective conversion would be possible” is a little vague, isn’t it. I think
the feeling on the part of our catalogers was that a retrospective conversion along these
lines (globally removing only the transliterated “h” in post-1453 Modern Greek records)
was a relatively discreet and well-defined command given the single language, single date
and single character, which only occurs in Greek in the initial position as a rough
breathing. I’m sure there would be complications, but I’d say that was the initial first
impression.
As for sharing these possible approaches with the Consortium, I would certainly have no
problem with that and in fact would encourage it. Let’s hope there are even better ideas
out there!
Dave
----------------------
David Jenkins
Librarian for Classics, Hellenic Studies and Linguistics
Princeton University
B-17P-1 Firestone Library
One Washington Road
Princeton, NJ 08544-2098
Tel: 609-258-5811
Fax: 609-258-6950
Email: dj3@princeton.edu<mailto:dj3@princeton.edu>
From: Oddo, Anthony [mailto:anthony.oddo@yale.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 3:26 PM
To: Helen F. Schmierer; David T. Jenkins; Robert Maxwell; Robert Rendall
Cc: Johnston, George (johnstg); Oddo, Anthony
Subject: RE: Greek Romanization
Hello:
I vote “more or less” for #1… however are these the only options available? You are
correct when you say the Consortium for Hellenic Studies Librarians has not discussed this
...I am the assistant chair and the whole problem is a hot topic on our list….I would like
to ask the members of the consortium their feelings for the three presented….would that be
appropriate???? Comments, etc!!!
I have a question: what is the meaning of the phrase in #1 “ retrospective conversion
would be possible”
Tony
From: Helen F. Schmierer [mailto:hfs@uic.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 1:13 PM
To: David T. Jenkins; Robert Maxwell; Robert Rendall
Cc: Johnston, George (johnstg); Oddo, Anthony
Subject: RE: Greek Romanization
Thank you for this input...
Task force, let's have a straw vote on these approaches, taking ONLY one of them. Do
you want, #1, #2 or #3...and if you have reasons why, let us know!
At 12:02 PM 3/22/2010, David T. Jenkins wrote:
FYI – some anecdotal but perhaps helpful feedback. On Friday I met with Princeton’s Greek
cataloging team (Gisela Kam, Jeff Luttrell and Yang Wang) and the Director of our
Cataloging and Metadata Services, Joyce Bell, in order to discuss LC’s proposal for Greek
Romanization.
First and foremost, there was strong, in some cases vehement, opposition to splitting
Modern Greek into mono and polytonic subsets (for all the same reasons that we have
discussed).
Second, they expressed openness to three general approaches (in descending order of
slightly lesser preference):
1) Keep the status quo but remove the rough breathing from all post-1453 Modern Greek
records. The members of our Greek cataloging team are all active contributors to the
Consortium for Hellenic Studies Librarians and mentioned that the Consortium has not yet
discussed this approach, which appears to be the emerging consensus of our own Task Force.
“ rough breathing does appear in polytonic texts, which are still being published in
spite of the official adoption of monotonic orthography in 1982.
2) Keep the status quo but, instead of removing the rough breathing from post-1453 Modern
Greek records, replace it with a new diacritic. In other words, for polytonic works in
Modern Greek, the appearance of the rough breathing would be indicated in transliteration
by a diacritic, not a character, which would insure the same search results as those from
monotonic texts. This approach was also considered simple to implement. However, it was
understood that (in addition to a perhaps problematic innovation) the retrospective
replacement of the transliterated “h” with this diacritic would result, at least
initially, in a subset of monotonic texts that now appear as polytonic.
3) Keep the status quo with no exceptions. The continuity of previous Greek cataloging
means something, as do the expectations that it has created. Nevertheless, they
understood that this status quo is becoming increasingly untenable with a new generation
of users.
----------------------
David Jenkins
Librarian for Classics, Hellenic Studies and Linguistics
Princeton University
B-17P-1 Firestone Library
One Washington Road
Princeton, NJ 08544-2098
Tel: 609-258-5811
Fax: 609-258-6950
Email: dj3@princeton.edu<mailto:dj3@princeton.edu>