From lhartman at SIU.EDU Tue Sep 23 11:24:47 2003 From: lhartman at SIU.EDU (Lee Hartman) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 07:24:47 EDT Subject: No sound change in LCSH Message-ID: ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Dear HistLing: The LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings) is a set of five thick volumes, bound in red, found at library information desks in the U.S., and used by U.S. libraries for classifying books according to their subject matter. For some areas, the dissection of disciplines and subdisciplines is breathtaking in its fine detail. But oddly, the LCSH lists no terms equivalent to that area of study we all know as "sound change" or "diachronic phonology." There is indeed a subject heading "Historical linguistics." Under that, we find the following: UF (= "Used for," i.e. equivalent to) Diachronic linguistics (the only "diachronic" anything in the LCSH) Dynamic linguistics Evolutionary linguistics Language and languages -- History ("Former heading") BT (= "Broader term") Language and history Linguistics NT (= "Narrower term") Comparative linguistics Historical lexicology Language obsolescence Linguistic change Reconstruction (linguistics) Well, among these terms, "Linguistic change" seems to come closest to historical phonology, and in fact it would seem that the latter term might reasonably be expected as an "NT" of "Linguistic change," wouldn't it? But here is the entry for "Linguistic change": UF Change, linguistic BT Historical linguistics Language and languages NT Glottochronology Neogrammarians This seems to be the entirety of our field, in the LCSH. There is no "Sound change," "Phonological change," "Phonetic change," "Historical phonology," "Diachronic phonology," "Historical grammar," or "Phonetic evolution," even to be cross-referenced to "Historical linguistics" or "Linguistic change." (Meanwhile, "Philology" is copiously represented in the LCSH. I haven't investigated it thoroughly.) What do others think of all this? Is it just a curiosity of diminishing importance as book-finding methods evolve with computerized catalogs? Or is it a matter of legitimate concern that should be taken up by historical linguists with Library of Congress catalogers? Lee Hartman Southern Illinois University -- Carbondale From lhartman at SIU.EDU Tue Sep 23 11:24:47 2003 From: lhartman at SIU.EDU (Lee Hartman) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 07:24:47 EDT Subject: No sound change in LCSH Message-ID: ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Dear HistLing: The LCSH (Library of Congress Subject Headings) is a set of five thick volumes, bound in red, found at library information desks in the U.S., and used by U.S. libraries for classifying books according to their subject matter. For some areas, the dissection of disciplines and subdisciplines is breathtaking in its fine detail. But oddly, the LCSH lists no terms equivalent to that area of study we all know as "sound change" or "diachronic phonology." There is indeed a subject heading "Historical linguistics." Under that, we find the following: UF (= "Used for," i.e. equivalent to) Diachronic linguistics (the only "diachronic" anything in the LCSH) Dynamic linguistics Evolutionary linguistics Language and languages -- History ("Former heading") BT (= "Broader term") Language and history Linguistics NT (= "Narrower term") Comparative linguistics Historical lexicology Language obsolescence Linguistic change Reconstruction (linguistics) Well, among these terms, "Linguistic change" seems to come closest to historical phonology, and in fact it would seem that the latter term might reasonably be expected as an "NT" of "Linguistic change," wouldn't it? But here is the entry for "Linguistic change": UF Change, linguistic BT Historical linguistics Language and languages NT Glottochronology Neogrammarians This seems to be the entirety of our field, in the LCSH. There is no "Sound change," "Phonological change," "Phonetic change," "Historical phonology," "Diachronic phonology," "Historical grammar," or "Phonetic evolution," even to be cross-referenced to "Historical linguistics" or "Linguistic change." (Meanwhile, "Philology" is copiously represented in the LCSH. I haven't investigated it thoroughly.) What do others think of all this? Is it just a curiosity of diminishing importance as book-finding methods evolve with computerized catalogs? Or is it a matter of legitimate concern that should be taken up by historical linguists with Library of Congress catalogers? Lee Hartman Southern Illinois University -- Carbondale