Sender: Rare Books and Special Collections Forum <EXLIBRIS@RUTVM1.BITNET>
> John Lancaster regards as beneath our dignity (chuckle) our
> considering the specific *form* of the print history banana.
Dignity (as Peter Graham is more aware than most) has nothing to do
with it. (Banana peels are slippery things.)
Since he's the reader, he must be right, but other readers (like
myself) may find in my words a specific suggestion that the specific
form of printing history line (not, I know, the precise term used by
any of the publishers listed by Everett -- but since they all differ,
I prefer to use the slightly more descriptive adjectival form) must
indeed be considered -- just not at the same time as we are trying to
pin down a generic term.
Once that term is agreed on, or at least a possible universe of such
terms that at least all who have followed the thread so far will thus
be able to grasp, then we can worry about adjectives -- snake-like,
oscillating, alternating, or even (just for Peter) forking -- to
designate specific forms.
Incidentally, there seems to me to be a place for the slightly more
general "printing history code" as well -- note that I've left out the
"publisher" completely here, whether their contribution is
intellectual, mechanical, or merely obfuscatory, in favor of pure
description, though I will probably opt in actual usage to include
reference to the publisher when I can be fairly sure that they, rather
than the author, printer, or top banana, decided to call for the new
printing -- in order to include statements that encode the information
in different ways and maybe not on a line by itself.
Or maybe "line" is too limiting in the other direction as well -- many
of the codes consist in fact of two lines, one for the sequential
printing number, the other for the year. So maybe we *do* need to
consider specific forms simultaneously with the generic term -- does
it make sense to speak of a "two-line printing history line"?
John Lancaster, Amherst College
(jlancaster@amherst.edu)