Rule 22.15C reads: "Do not add other titles or terms associated with names entered under surname unless they are required to distinguish between two or more persons with the same name and neither dates nor fuller forms of name are available."
One of the things this rule entails is that no name entered under
surname can have a delimiter-c
qualifier, if that
qualifier is a "title or term associated with the name" (as most
of them are). Even if the Encyclopedia Judaica
calls someone
"Phinehas Shapiro of Korets," for example, his heading
will be "Shapiro, Phinehas" not "Shapiro, Phinehas,$cof
Korets" UNLESS THERE IS A CONFLICT with some other Phinehas
Shapiro that can't be broken by means of fuller forms of name ($q) or dates
($d). Note that the $c "titles" ha-Kohen and ha-Levi are exempted
from this rule, since we add them under the provisions of
rule 22.12A1 as "titles of nobility." As such they
can occur with both surname and forename-only headings.
Regarding the case of M. Friedman, for whom there are two records no81-74 (for Michael A. Friedman) and no92-13986 (for Mordekhai Friedman): one cannot qualify the latter as "Friedman, M. (Mordekhai)", because it would be a "mix and match" in this particular case. The answer to resolving the conflict is to qualify it with "Rabbiner Teth," the epithet that actually occurs with the roman form of the name (following 22.15C). The qualifier "of Teth" isn't even really "available," since it's only a (partial) translation of what does occur, namely "rav di-k.k. Teth" or "Rabbiner Teth."
ID:NAFO9213986 ST:p EL:n
STH:a MS:c UIP:a TD:19960228145750
KRC:a NMU:a CRC:c UPN:a
SBU:a SBC:a DID:n DF:06-02-92
RFE:a CSC:c SRU:b SRT:n SRN:n
TSS:? TGA:? ROM:? MOD: LCT:
VST:d 02-28-96
Other Versions: earlier
010 no 92013986
040 OU$cOU$dDLC
100 1 Friedman, M.,$cRabbiner Teth
400 1 Ish Shalom, Mordekhai,$crav di-.k..k. .Te.th
400 1 Fridman, Mordekhai
400 1 Friedman, Mordekhai
400 1 Shalom, Mordekhai Ish
670 Tosefta. Mo°ed. Tosaftot seder Mo°ed,
1897 or 1898-1900 or 1901:$bt.p., vol. 1 (Mordekhai ha-.k. Ish Shalom,
rav di-.k..k. .Te.th) t.p. verso (M. Friedman, Bez. Rabbiner Teth [in rom.])
haskamah (Mordekhai Friedman [in Heb.])
670 Friedberg, B. Bet °e.ked sefarim, 1951:$bindex
(Fridman, Mordekhai)
675 Encyc. Judaica, 1971.
-----------------------------
[Note that the following name was eventually qualified as well]
ID:NAFL8174 ST:p
EL:n STH:a MS:c UIP:a
KRC:a NMU:a CRC:c UPN:a
SBU:a SBC:a DID:n DF:01-16-81
RFE:a CSC: SRU:b SRT:n SRN:n
TSS:? TGA:? ROM:? MOD: LCT:
VST:d 11-13-97
Other Versions: earlier
010 n 81000074
040 DLC$cDLC$dDLC
100 10 Friedman, M.$q(Michael)
500 10 Friedman, Michael
500 10 Friedman, Michael A.
670 Diagnosis and treatment of upper gastrointestinal
tumors, 1981 (a.e.)$bCIP t.p. (M. Friedman) p. 347 in printed book (Michael
A. Friedman; Cancer Research Institute M-1282, U. of Calif., San Francisco)
------------------------------------
A question came up regarding a book with the author's name in Hebrew on the t.p. and in romanization on the t.p. verso When wanting to set him up per the latter (RI 22.3C), it was realized that the non-standard romanization on the t.p. verso was identical to a heading for another author in the file-- i.e., he would have ended up an "undifferentiated personal name": the dreaded "non-unique." Now, there's really no shame involved in establishing a non-unique name, but still, everyone hates to do it. And on p. 4 of cover the author's name was found in Hebrew with "Dr." in front of it.
The question: are we allowed to "mix and match" this kind of qualifier for a name, that is to say may we attach the "Hebrew" "Dr." to the "English" form of the name used in the heading, in order to avoid a conflict?
CPSO said yes, if there is no other way to avoid it.
-------------------------------
When a place name is attached to a forename (there's no
surname) with the name of the father coming after the
place name (for example (diacritics omitted): Me'ir
a.b.d. di-k.k. Korstshov ve-Hodorkov ben ha-Rav Nata),
should one leave off the father's name altogether?
Yes. As we interpret rule 22.8A1, when the sequence of *names* is interrupted by something substantial, such as "any words or phrases denoting place of origin, domicile, occupation, or other characteristics that are commonly associated with the name," we stop transcribing names. This is why, in some cases, even folks who put an Actual Surname on their title pages sometimes end up established without it-- if they allow "words or phrases" to interrupt the forename(s) ... surname sequence.
---------------------------------
How to establish a name from a t.p. on which the author's
name appears in both Hebrew and Cyrillic
the Hebrew citation does not contain
a surname, although the Cyrillic citation has one
the Hebrew forenames are followed by
$c-type information
the author's date of death is known
The chief source reads, it seems, "Mosheh Shelomoh,
ha-a.b.d. di-k.k. Neshelsk u-Partseve."
The Cyrillic reads, it seems, "M. Sh. Levinson."
Note: If both these forms appear on the chief source, they are equally "prominent." However, when choosing the form for the heading, the one in the original language of the work (in this case, Hebrew) is preferred (rule 22.1B).
Since we are going to use the Hebrew form, what else will be included in the heading? Of course, if we know the date of death, we include that, applying the optional provision of rule 22.17A as specified in the RI.
And what about the $c information? Rule 22.8A1 says that when
we are establishing a name that does not
include a surname, we should "include in the name
any words or phrases denoting place of origin, domicile, occupation,
or other characteristics that are commonly associated with
the name in works by the person or in reference sources."
What does the phrase "associated with the name" mean?
CPSO's answer to this question is "immediately contiguous to
the name." So a lot depends on whether
the chief source really reads exactly as it had
been stated above..
If there is nothing substantive between
"Mosheh Shelomoh" and "ha-a.b.d. di-k.k.
Nashelsk, etc.," the phrase is "immediately contiguous,"
i.e. "associated with" the name and should be included.
Blessings (zal, shelita, z.y. 'a. and the like) are
not substantive. Anything else is. Chances are, the phrase
*is* contiguous, and should be included.
Other wrinkles: It's essential, for
the foregoing to be correct, that we're
discussing the true chief source. If
the book is a reprint, for example, one must
consider whether the chief source applying to the item in
hand is not something other than the facsimile of the original
t.p. It might be, say, the cover, and very often
the author's name does not appear in the chief
source when it's something other than a conventional
title page. If *that* should be the case, then the form(s)
of name on the original t.p. are *not* prominent.
In such a case, though we'd still choose the heading in the original language
of the work, we'd be at liberty to look through the rest of the book
for a fuller form of the name (cf. rule 22.3A1)-- say,
a Hebrew form of the name including a surname. Such
are often found in haskamot. If the cover is the chief source,
*no*
source inside the book is prominent, so a fuller form,
wherever found, can be taken as the heading. And if you find
an eligible form of the name which includes a surname, the $c information
can be omitted (even if it's "associated with the
name"), because rule 22.8A1 applies only to headings without surnames.
------------------------
If the piece in hand gives an
author's name with forename initial(s) only, and
the only source which spells out the
initial(s) is a (non-LC) heading in RLIN,
may we add the forename(s) from the RLIN heading
to the new heading in a $q, if this does not create a
"mix and match" situation with systematic romanization and non-systematic?
Note: these situations usually occur when
the new heading will be
in non-systematic romanization, and usually when
the forename in question is a standard English-Bible
one, like "Samuel".
LC Hebraica catalogers feel uneasy about this point. The
question is in all of our minds: sure, the initial may
in some sense represent the name "Shemu'el" or the
name "Samuel," but did the author himself ever
use "Samuel" or did some cataloger put in
the "Bible" form of the forename just because of a local practice,
as LC used to do in pre-AACR times?
Nevertheless, in spite of this feeling, it's agreed
that there's no rule that says you *can't*
use RLIN, or any other
source, to provide this kind of information.
the RI (22.18a) says that the cataloger must feel he
knows the full form of the
name "with certainty," and that means it's a matter of judgment.
If you don't feel "certain" enough of them, you
don't have to accept them.
Figuring this way, the liberals end up with $qs; the conservative does not. Thus, one might formulate the heading as "Brod, S. M.$q(Samuel Menahem)" (h with subscript dot): the "samuel" shows that a non-systematic romanization is intended here, matching the non-systematic romanization of the surname and initials from the piece in hand. It's just a coincidence that this non-systematic romanization of "Menahem" is exactly like the systematic romanization ("Brod" could be either as well).
NOTE: it's definitely *not* okay to use a forename from RLIN (or anywhere else) in a $q if your 670s show more than one possible spelled-out form for the initial(s) in the heading. If your non-systematically romanized heading has "s." and your 670s show both "Samuel" and "Shmuel," you shouldn't use either in a $q.
--------------------------------------
How should the name of the author of Sefer Damese.k Eli'ezer", Eli'ezer b.m.h. v.r. R. Yehudah, be stablished?
Diane Humes of CPSO replys on the propriety of including an epithet with the Eli'ezer ben Yehuda(h) heading:
Certainly epithets and titles don't have anything
to do with fullness--they are additions to the name,
not part of the name.
In this particular case though, if I understand it correctly, the addition
of the epithet could be justified by slightly stretching
22.8A1 "Include ... commonly associated ..." I would not
object to doing that, since it does give more of a "handle" for purposes
of identification. Bottom line on this one seems to me that
it doesn't really matter a great deal whether the epithet is
used or not, but I personally would lean toward including it.
ID:NAFR961284 ST:p EL:n
STH:a MS:n UIP:a TD:19960127052503
KRC:a NMU:a CRC:c UPN:a
SBU:a SBC:a DID:n DF:01-11-96
RFE:a CSC:c SRU:b SRT:n SRN:n
TSS:? TGA:? ROM:? MOD: LCT:
VST:d 01-29-96
010 nr 96001284
040 NjP$cNjP
100 00 Eli°ezer ben Yehuda,$cmi-.k..k. Pin.tshov
400 00 Eli°ezer ben Yehudah
400 00 Eliezer ben Judah,$cof Pinczow
400 00 Eli°ezer ben Yuda
670 Sefer Damese.k Eli°ezer, 1992?:$borig. t.p.
(k. mo. ha-r. R. Eli°ezerb.m.h. .ve-r. R. Yehudah; parnas ha-dor bi-gelil
.Kra.ka u-manhig .ve-rosh b.d. bi-.k..k. Pin.tshov) p. 1 (mo. ha-r. R.
Eli°ezer b.h.h. ... Yehuda zal mi-.k..k. Pin.tshov; Eli°ezer ben
... Yuda)
670 RLIN, 1-2-96$b(hdg.: Eliezer ben Judah, of Pinczow)
675 Enc. Jud., c1972.