Extent of technical notation within narrative
- This topic has 2 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I have enclosed a page from a Chemistry text. The red arrow points to the target of this question. I have also enclosed a braille file with two methods for transcribing the statement. Which is the preferable method?
Choice 1 shows the statement in UEB with only the chemical formulas and the slash transcribed in Nemeth.
Choice 2 shows the statement with the divided segments fully enclosed in Nemeth. It seems to read as 3 moles of CO2 per or divided by 1 mole of C3H8.
I think that choice 1 is correct. However, I am confused after reviewing BANA's Guidance for Transcription Using Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts, Basic Guidance on When to Switch, Guideline #1: "Any mathematical expression or chemical formula is transcribed in Nemeth Code. This includes fragmentary expressions, (parts of formulas, incomplete equations, and the like) including isolated signs of operation or comparison. Slash meaning per, over, or divided by is mathematical and is part of a fraction. Fractions are transcribed in Nemeth Code.
Which method is best for the reader?
Charles, you have found a very interesting challenge to our guidelines. The would be no question if the author had used the word "per" instead of a slash, or if the actual numerator and denominator of the problem were used in the narrative ("3 mol CO2" instead of "3 moles of CO2", etc.). However, this is not the case. The slash launches us into Nemeth Code. The fraction, then, is "3 moles of CO2 [per or over] 1 mole of C3H8" which means the second transcription is the correct one. I have repeated it here for clarity.
(See the next post for the simbraille)
Lindy
Everyone is free to read the forums, but only current NBA members can post. Become a member today. Click here to Login and return.