INTRODUCTION
<
previous | next >
Technical Aspects
Cataloguing Procedures
As in virtually all major research libraries in North America,
cataloguing policy at McGill strives to reflect Library of Congress
(LC) practice:- in its interpretation of the Anglo-American Cataloguing
Rules for descriptive cataloguing, in its procedures for choosing
"authoritative" name headings, and in subject analysis - the assignation
of subject headings and classification numbers. The transcription
of Yiddish into the Roman alphabet also follows LC romanization
practice as much as possible.
The intended audience for the published Fishstein Catalogue is
wider than that of the professional library world. The editor's
aim, therefore, has been to present a volume that is as clear
and readable as possible, with technical discipline present, but
unobtrusive.
The Catalogue Entries
Each entry listed in this Catalogue has been derived from a full
record on McGill's automated catalogue. To make the listing manageable,
and for the sake of clarity and brevity, each record has been
reduced to its essential elements. Names of contributors other
than the author, which are generally listed at the bottom of the
traditional catalogue card, have been omitted; access to them
is provided by the Author and Illustrator Indices.
Similarly, LC "uniform titles" and subject headings have not been
included. The few uniform titles present in the Fishstein Collection
entries were considered dispensable in a published catalogue of
this nature. Subject access is provided by the headings into which
the main sections of this Catalogue have been divided, which are
listed in the Table of Contents. These generally reflect the subject
analysis inherent in the LC classification scheme, the order of
which, with a few exceptions, is followed in the listing of the
entries. Subject access to names has been provided in the Author
and Illustrator Indices.
Romanization
Yiddish is written in the Hebrew alphabet, as are Hebrew and Aramaic,
and reads from right to left. Since the Roman alphabet is like
one used by Library of Congress and most North American research
libraries in their computerized cataloguing, a problem arises
for libraries with large collections in non-Roman alphabets. Because
of important practical considerations, virtually all major research
libraries in North America partake in the shared cataloguing provided
by the large North American bibliographic utilities, like OCLC
(Online Computer Library Center) and RLIN (Research Libraries
Information Network). Participating libraries with Hebraica collections
are obliged to accept or create cataloguing records which have
been romanized according to the LC scheme. This is also true for
contributors to the RLIN database, which has incorporated certain
provisions for original Hebrew alphabet transcription.
The romanization scheme generally implemented in this Catalogue
is that of the Library of Congress. The American Library Association
/ Library of Congress (ALA/LC) Romanization
Table follows. The scheme is basically compatible with that
of the YIVO Institute of Jewish Research. (Cf. Weinreich, 1949,
p.26, and 1968, p. xxi; Weinberg, 1995, p, 60.) The treatment
of vowels matches YIVO's, but the table for consonants differs
in some respects. For example, in LC, the gutteral consonant hes
("h")[dotted] is differentiated from khof ("kh"), and the
zayin-shin is transcribed as "zsh" rather than "zh".
In the interest of visual clarity, without sacrificing phonetic
accuracy, it was decided to retain one diacritic only in the published
version of the Catalogue: the dot under the "h", depicting the
guttural hes. The inclusion of this diacritic is essential in
the LC scheme, as the guttural hes is represented by the same
letter as for the aspirate hey, and must be differentiated from
it.
There are many Hebraisms in standard Yiddish, Hebrew words or
elements of words that have become embedded in its sister language.
These retain their Hebrew spelling (except in Soviet orthography),
but are pronounced differently than they are in Sephardi Hebrew.
Library of Congress practice has varied through the years with
regard to the transcription of Hebraisms. In its concern to approximate
reversibility where possible, LC formerly romanized such words
as they would be pronounced in Sephardi Hebrew, rather than in
Yiddish. It now accepts the vocalization given by Uriel Weinreich's
Modern English-Yiddish, Yiddish-English Dictionary (1968),
which is that of the YIVO romanization scheme, with the substitution
of its own romanized equivalents for consonants. (Maher, 1987,
p. 22)
However, this approach is not extended by LC to Hebrew forenames
in a Yiddish context. Its policy for the treatment of such a forename
is that the name is romanized "according to its Hebrew form rather
than attempting to approximate a Yiddish pronunciation" (Maher,
1987, p. 23) (e.g., Mosheh, not Moysheh). This directive
was not followed in the Fishstein Catalogue - one of the few deviations
from the LC practice to be found in it - as such a practice was
considered to be jarring for the Yiddish reader (4).
For the systematic transcription of a Hebrew forename in standard
Yiddish, the cataloguer of this Collection has attempted a compromise;
she has tried to convey its Yiddish pronunciation, while suggesting
its Hebrew derivation. For example, within the context of standard
Yiddish, the Hebrew name, Mosheh, is generally rendered
Moysheh; within a Soviet Yiddish orthography context it
is transcribed as Moyshe.
Another minor modification of LC romanization practice has been
made in this Catalogue. To minimize ambiguity, an inverted apostrophe
has been inserted before the last "e" of certain romanized words,
without which the word might be pronounced differently by an English
reader. For example, the Yiddish word for "all" - al'e
(alef, lamed, ayin) - without a division mark, might well
be pronounced like the word for the alcoholic beverage.
There is no question that a romanized entry looks alien to the
Yiddish reader, especially to the unpractised eye. However, despite
the difficulties experienced in the use of a romanized catalogue,
it may nevertheless provide some unexpected benefits. It is helpful
to readers who are unfamiliar with the Hebrew alphabet, but can
understand spoken Yiddish; or to East European Yiddish readers
with a knowledge of the Roman alphabet, whose familiarity with
Soviet Yiddish orthography makes standard Yiddish look foreign.
In addition, the essence of a Yiddish phrase will often be grasped
by those who understand spoken German, provided it contains few
Hebraisms.
<
previous | next
>
Goldie Sigal
Jewish Studies Librarian
McGill University Libraries