Nitpicky spelling question

[Mimi]

This is a question regarding Dutch spelling, but the problem itself is fairly universal.

In 1995-96 there was a major spelling overhaul of the Dutch written language.
Several words have to be spelled differently since then (it concerns lots of common words like 'pannenkoek' (pancake), previously pannekoek).

My question is this: if one of those words appears in the description of a Dutch edition printed before the spelling change (and thus was correct at the time), should it be updated?
Or should it be left alone, since it is representative of the spelling used in that particular edition of a book?

[Krazykiwi]

I doubt there's an actual policy on this :) So this is entirely my opinion.

I'd just leave it, if it was correct when the book was written, and it's an otherwise good description, especially if it looks like it's an 'official' or cover text. Just take a deep breath and let it go :)

I get it, I'm a perfectionist too. Swedish has similar issues -- the spelling reform is much older, but there's certainly books here that have archaic spelling in their descriptions. Even English has changed stylistically, and has the additional issue of US vs UK spelling. And there's a mountain of 19th century children's books promising "gay tales for children" that read quite oddly to a modern eye.

I think there are a lot more useful things for a librarian to do than to nitpick descriptions. I've actually seen librarians get into edit wars "correcting" UK to US spelling in descriptions and back, and it's really pretty pointless. Mostly, it doesn't actually help readers, since descriptions aren't searchable, so people won't be unable to find a book just because pancake has changed spelling.

[Mimi]

Krazykiwi wrote: "I doubt there's an actual policy on this :) So this is entirely my opinion.

I'd just leave it, if it was correct when the book was written, and it's an otherwise good description, especially if it..."

It doesn't *really* bother me because I know it was correct when the book was printed.

I was just asking because I was wondering what the accepted convention was in a case like this.

I've got a gigantic stack of Dutch edition books printed in the '50 and '60, that aren't in the GR database yet (I'll add them as soon as I've got some spare time), and I'd hate to have to go back and change the spelling in the descriptions... lol

[Krazykiwi]

Mimi wrote: "I've got a gigantic stack of Dutch edition books printed in the '50 and '60, that aren't in the GR database yet (I'll add them as soon as I've got some spare time), and I'd hate to have to go back and change the spelling in the descriptions..."

Ahh, that's a different story :) If you're adding them yourself you get to write the description. It doesn't have to be word for word what's on the covers (or from any official source at all), you can write them entirely yourself and spell everything just how you like. Even if there are existing entries with a default description set, it's just a suggestion - you don't have to use it.

I was thinking more about already existing entries. Folks get into arguments and leave hilarious librarian notes and fill the edit log with multiple reversions of each other over lesser things all the time :)

[lethe]

I don't think there is an accepted convention, but I'm pretty sure that libraries don't go back and change book descriptions every time the spelling changes :)

The Dutch language has seen many spelling changes (I believe there are minor changes every few years) and some have been so illogical (the "tussen-n" that you mentioned) that I've basically given up and spell according to what I feel is right.

[Mimi]

Well, a few of the books are already on here, and I'd like to keep it uniform;

I'll stick to the original spelling of the book's backcover/blurb, since that's the description the author and/or publisher deemed appropriate for the book.
Any summary I composed myself, I feel should be posted in my review of the book, since it's my take on the book's content and no 'official' version...

I was't even considering editing wars... They can be funny to bystanders, but I believe there's a more productive use of everyone's time...

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter!

[Mimi]

lethe wrote: "I don't think there is an accepted convention, but I'm pretty sure that libraries don't go back and change book descriptions every time the spelling changes :)

The Dutch language has seen many spe..."

The 'tussen-n' was one of the few changes that made sense to me when it was introduced, lol.
I remember having an awful time at school though, in the mid-'90. Besides the spelling change, there were a lot of changes to the EU and a change to the provinces in Belgium. Our teacher used to start the days lesson often with 'Remember what we learned about ... last week? Well, they've just changed it and you'll have to learn it all over again.'

note: this was totally off-topic. Sorry

[lethe]

It's your own topic, you can be as off-topic as you like ;)

There are so many exceptions to the 'tussen-n' that it is impossible to remember them all. Zonneschijn, Koninginnedag, etc. They should just have dropped the 'tussen-n' from all the words. But then there would be no exceptions anymore, and why make it easy when you can make it difficult?

Mimi wrote: "Any summary I composed myself, I feel should be posted in my review of the book, since it's my take on the book's content and no 'official' version..."

Many (older) books don't have descriptions on the cover. When there is no 'official' version it is fine to add a summary of your own making, as long as it's neutral.