| 010 | $a sp2018000259 | ||||
| 040 | $a NcU $b eng $c DLC | ||||
| 053 | QA141.8.V54 | ||||
| 150 | $a Vigesimal system | ||||
| 450 | $a Base twenty numeration | ||||
| 450 | $a Numeration, Base twenty | ||||
| 550 | $w g $a Arithmetic | ||||
| 550 | $w g $a Numeration | ||||
| 670 | $a Work cat: Gyves Ruiz, Desiderio de. Xigāba bīnnizā = Numeración en zapoteco, 2016: $b page 2 (The use of Zapotec in teaching mathematics to native speakers, cemented in the Mesoamerican vigesimal system) | ||||
| 670 | $a The story of mathematics WWW site 5 February 2018: $b Mayan mathematics (The Mayan and other Mesoamerican cultures used a vigesimal number system based on base 20 (and, to some extent, base 5), probably originally developed from counting on fingers and toes) | ||||
| 670 | $a Rethinking mathematics, 2006: $b page 73 (origins of the vigesimal number system; Zapotecs of Oaxaca used the Mesoamerican vigesimal system in their calendars between 900 and 400 B.C.; the Izapan culture used the same convention; later, the Mayas, to whom the vigesimal system is mistakenly attibuted, used this system) | ||||
| 670 | $a Science WWW site 5 February 2018: $b Holden, Constance. How Aztecs did the math, 2008 (the Aztec number system, a vigesimal system, using 20 as its base) | ||||
| 670 | $a nigercongoindoeuropeandotnet WWW site 23 February 2018: $b Counting in twenties (the main language groups in Europe which retain the vigesimal counting system are Basque and the Brythonic Celtic languages … while some remnants are found in French and Danish … a common feature of many Niger Congo languages of western tropical Africa) | ||||
| 670 | $aAfrica Public WWW site 23 February 2018: $b (the Yoruba people developed a complex numerical system that is vigesimal in nature) | ||||
| 681 | |||||
| 952 | $a LC pattern: Quinary system | ||||
| 952 | |||||
| 907 | $r Coop $t 0 $x 0 $e saralev@email.unc.edu | ||||
| 910 |
From Paul Frank:
It looks good! You do not need to include the 681 field unless the proposed heading is going to be added to that list in the authority record for Place value (Mathematics). For now I would just leave it out.
One of the things that always is a challenge with LCSH is the degree of specificity. Since you found a good pattern in Quinary system, it makes me wonder if there could be a broader proposal Vigesimal system instead, and then in a bibliographic record, you would “double” the headings, for example:
650 _0 Vigesimal system.
650 _0 Maya numeration.
This is just an idea. Not sure if you considered it. But I also like the more specific Mesoamerican vigesimal system. If you could justify that phrase a little more, the proposal will have more merit. I see that the terms Mayan vigesimal system and Aztec vigesimal system are used as well. Those might make good UFs. Do you think that there are other cultures outside Mesoamerica that used the vigesimal system? I saw something about Maori, but was not too sure.
I would not include the 053 since the classification number is on an “e.g.” list, so there would not be a caption in the LC Classification schedules to go with this number. See the Classification and Shelflisting Manual (CSM) F 350, Topical Cutters.
The second 670 needs a subfield $b:
670 The story of mathematics WWW site 5 February 2018: $b Mayan mathematics (The Mayan and other Mesoamerican cultures used a vigesimal number system based on base 20 (and, to some extent, base 5), probably originally developed from counting on fingers and toes)
From Paul Frank:
It looks great. Thanks. Some minor edits in the 670 (just punctuation things):
670 $a The story of mathematics WWW site 5 February 2018: $b Mayan mathematics (The Mayan and other Mesoamerican cultures used a vigesimal number system based on base 20 (and, to some extent, base 5), probably originally developed from counting on fingers and toes)
670 $a Africa Public WWW site 23 February 2018: $b (the Yoruba people developed a complex numerical system that is vigesimal in nature)
The 053 looks good, too. Since there are no resources in the LC OPAC with that Cutter, you can treat it as a new Cutter, and expand it to two digits – that is the policy for new Cutter numbers when the Cutter has not been used in the LC shelflist, so I would go with QA141.8.V54, and then you can make a companion LCC proposal and we can forward them both together.
Thanks for all the detailed work on this proposal!
Paul
I’m sending this heading in today and going to ask for help with submitting the call number. Sara