The opposite of always. Some people insist that their name never be
sorted on the particle, regardless of publisher’s preference or
inclination.
OK.
That’s the meaning. As for the point itself, I’ve just discovered
that my trial subscription to the online CMS has not quite expired.
The relevant section is 18.69:In alphabetizing family names containing particles, the indexer must
consider the individual’s personal preference (if known) as well as
traditional and national usages. Merriam-Webster’s Biographical
Dictionary (bibliog. 4.1) provides a safe guide; library catalogs are
another useful source. Cross-references are often advisable (see
18.16). Note the wide variations in the following list of actual names
arranged alphabetically as they might appear in an index. See also
8.7, 8.11–13.Beauvoir, Simone de
Ben-Gurion, David
Costa, Uriel da
da Cunha, Euclides
D’Amato, Alfonse
de Gaulle, Charles
di Leonardo, Micaela
Keere, Pieter van den
Kooning, Willem de
La Fontaine, Jean de
Leonardo da Vinci
Medici, Lorenzo de’
Van Rensselaer, StephenChicago occasionally deviates from Webster when a name is invariably
accompanied by a particle and thus likely to be sought by most readers
under the particle—de Gaulle, for example.
But correct me if I’m wrong: the above cases can be solved by shifting
the particle (what is that, a “pre” article?) between the family and
given. E.g.:
Beauvoir, Simone de > family, given particle
Ben-Gurion, David > family, given
Costa, Uriel da > family, given particle
da Cunha, Euclides > family, given
D’Amato, Alfonse > family, given
de Gaulle, Charles > family, given
di Leonardo, Micaela > family, given
Keere, Pieter van den > family, given particle
Kooning, Willem de > family, given particle
La Fontaine, Jean de > family, given particle
Leonardo da Vinci > (I presume) family, given
Medici, Lorenzo de’ > family, given particle
Van Rensselaer, Stephen > family, given
This suggests that Chicago-conformant styles would treat Dutch names
as in Holland, and German names as in Germany. So if no publisher
ever deviates from Chicago rules, then no option is necessary.We still don’t know whether that is the case, of course.
If we’re going down this path (e.g. if we’re not content with a
simple, consensus, solution), I suggest we save it for post-1.0. I
really don’t want to get into per-language sorting rules for
particles.
But I still think it’s not that complicated
Bruce