No sound change in LCSH

[Lee Hartman]

----------------------------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