I think it simply depends on the established policy of wherever you are alphabetizing. I remember some weird situation where we were expected to basically ignore the 'c' or 'ac' and treat the word as 'M' followed by the next significant letter.:<br>
<br>McDonald<br>MacKracken<br>MacAnulty<br><br>were filed as if: MAnulty, MDonald, MKracken<br><br>Internal consistency is what counts. However, in these days of WWCD (What Would the Computer Do), I would think it is more likely to be straight letter-by-letter, no holds barred.<br>
<br>Nancy who is also Ki-lin<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:06 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:snspies@aol.com">snspies@aol.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<font color="black" face="arial" size="2">
<div>It's been "a few" years since I last had to alphabetize "Mc"s and "Mac"s in a bilbiography, and I was wondering what the current rule is. Are the "Mc"s considered to be "Mac"s, or are they put under "Mc"? (Frustrating memories of high school floating around here ... .)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Nancy<br>
<br>
</div>
<div style="clear: both;"></div>
</font>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Sca-librarians mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Sca-librarians@lists.gallowglass.org">Sca-librarians@lists.gallowglass.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/sca-librarians" target="_blank">http://lists.gallowglass.org/mailman/listinfo/sca-librarians</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>