In response to Ruth Christ's:

>We have been having a discussion locally about whether or not
>changing the first word of a title to (or from) a possessive
>form constitutes a title change.  For example, Polk's bank
>directory ... changed to Polk bank directory ...  AACR2 21.2A1
>specifies that singular vs. plural form does not constitute a
>title change but possessives are not mentioned.  In English these
>seem to be similar cases, but are perhaps less so in other
>languages.  Is there an RI that we have overlooked, or would
>this not be a title change?
_____________________________________________________________________
Ruth,
        No one else has yet ventured a thought on this one, so I'll
go out on a limb & see if popular opinion knocks me off.

        I suggest this is not a title change--based on a precise
reading of AACR2r 21.2A1a & the LCRI for same.

        The parenthetical statement in the rule is an "_e.g._"
statement.  In other words, other situations that are not to be
considered title changes can exist in addition to those that are
specifically listed as examples in the rule and the LCRI.  (Note that
the LCRI reads "... AT LEAST the following are covered in addition to
those explicitly mention in the 'e.g.,' statement" [emphasis added].)
I would interpret the situation that you cite (possessives) to be
within the spirit of the rule & the LCRI.

        On the other hand, I could also cite the sentence in 21.2A1
that reads "In case of doubt, consider the title proper to have
changed."   But that would turn this into a rather wish-washy reply,
right?

        What would I do if the volumes in question were in front of me
at this moment?  I would add a 500 & a 246 10 to the old record to
cover the new, variant title.  I would _not_ close off the old record
and create a new record.

        David C. Van Hoy,  Principal
           Serials Cataloger, MIT
              Libraries; dcvh@
                 athena.mit
                    .edu
                      =