Talk:Scribal abbreviation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

I'm not sure about some of the abbreviations on that new image...is -is abbreviated like that? The real problem though is that the abbreviation for quorum looks like the usual abbreviation for quia. Adam Bishop 03:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Glagolitic[edit]

Is a mention of Glagolitic ligatures suitable here?

Sure, go ahead! Adam Bishop 17:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigla[edit]

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Sigla: Editorial designations of versions of an early literary text, esp. those used in the preparation of an edition. Also sing. siglum.

Yes, that is another use of the word. Adam Bishop 20:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

YAS![edit]

Molly Bloom says, "Yas!"

Yet Another Sigla. While James Joyce was writing Finnegans Wake, first known as Work in Progress, he used signs to designate the main characters and aspects of their identity. Roland McHugh discusses these signs in his 1976 book "The Sigla of Finnegans Wake." On page 8 he quotes from Joyce's 24 March 1924 letter to Harriet Shaw Weaver: "In making notes I used signs for the chief characters. It may amuse you to see them so I shall write them on the back of this." John Harvey (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

CAPPELLI, not CAPELLI[edit]

Dear Gentlemen. In this Article, Adriano Cappelli is mentioned many times. His name is written Cappelli, not Capelli. Please correct this. 84.58.222.197

Thanks for spotting that. Given the fact that you spotted a hard to spot small mistake I gather that you may be able to contribute to the article. So feel confident to edit the article page freely. --Squidonius (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate Images[edit]

At the bottom of the page there are six scanned pages from a book. The page whose file is labeled "3" appears in two places; there is no page labeled "5". 4.154.251.92 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

where does the 'and' belong?[edit]

Interest in [the alphabet notation] was rekindled ... when it was rediscovered ... in a psalm written entirely in Tironian shorthand and a Ciceronian lexicon ...

Is this equivalent to "a psalm written entirely in a Ciceronian lexicon and Tironian shorthand" or to "a Ciceronian lexicon and a psalm written entirely in Tironian shorthand", or something else? —Tamfang (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Cappelli CRV?[edit]

There’s a comment at the top of the Cappelli-based section:

this is a translation nearly ad litteram (a bit reductive) of the book's preface with the addition of one or two English (Old Norse/English) specific notes so single citation should suffice (apart from additions).

That sounds as is it may be a copyright violation. — Christoph Päper 06:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, not really and sorry for the awkward, hastily written and cryptic sentence. The book, being Italian, goes on and on, and this is a much reduced version —initially I was planning to be quite thorough, though—, the section order matches and the terminology is calqued ad litteram, but in essence it a prose of the source. What I meant to say: I cannot be asked to put a ref tag after each fullstop as I used a single source.
The fact that there were some notes about OE gloss interspersed was a bit odd in hindsight and the fact that it does not follow the preceding sections is more of a problem.

Paleography is different from mathematics[edit]

Cappelli is a dictionary of examples, while this article is a list of mathematical rules, which is much easier but tricky. Unfortunately rules may often be correct, but they are not consistently followed. Reader should be advised that real life manuscripts may be quite different than expected. Old time scribes had no way to learn WP standardized paleography Pinea (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Adriano Cappelli’s Lexicon Abbreviaturarum[edit]

Scribal abbreviation#Abbreviation types currently begins "Adriano Cappelli, author of Lexicon Abbreviarum: Dizionario di Abbreviature Latine ed Italiane,…". The correct title is Lexicon Abbreviaturarum, not Lexicon *Abbreviarum. Moreover, the note that follows that beginning reads "Cappelli 2011 (first published 1961)."; however, Archive.org hosts a Lexicon Abbreviaturarum: Wörterbuch lateinischer und italienischer Abkürzungen by an Adriano Cappelli from 1928, which must be the same work, given their identical titles (the Italian dizionario di abbreviature latine ed italiane and the German Wörterbuch lateinischer und italienischer Abkürzungen both translate to the English dictionary of Latin and Italian abbreviations). Besides that, and somewhat less reliably, Amazon.co.uk lists a Lexicon abbreviaturarum quae in lapidibus, codicibus et chartis praesertim medii-aevi occurrunt by an Adriano Cappelli from 1899 on two pages. I suggest that that section's opening sentence be changed to just "Adriano Cappelli, author of the Lexicon Abbreviaturarum,…", that the reference be corrected so that it no longer gives 1961 as the date of first publication, and that the "Cappelli (2011)" authority in the bibliography be tweaked as appropriate (though I'm not exactly sure how). I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right, and it's partly my fault, in that I put in the 1961 date (actually the 6th edition), though not the misspelling of the title. There are biographical entries for Cappelli (1859–1942) on both the Italian and German wikis, and both mention the 1899 date. The last substantive revision by Cappelli himself seems to have been the 3rd edition of 1929: the subsequent editions (4th, 5th and 6th; 1949, 1954, 1961, with numerous reprintings up to at least 2008) were basically photographic facsimiles of the 3rd, though presumably with some minor adjustments. I haven't seen the 7th edition (2011), but it is presumably a substantive revision, as it has two named editors. I will make some adjustments: I don't know when Cappelli first made the various points attributed to him, but I doubt his views changed significantly, so I think it's reasonable to cite the 7th (2011) edition as first published 1899. By the way, you are allowed to edit wikipedia yourself. GrindtXX (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)