Talk:Tironian notes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Typography (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated C-class, Mid-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

U+204A[edit]

Why is this in “General punctuation”[1]? I've seen it used instead of the letters ‹et› in ‹etc.›, so it is more like an alphabetic presentation form in that (German) text. Is this a punctuation mark in Irish? Wikipeditor 12:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The et in etc. is the Latin word et (et cetera = "and other things"). &c. used to be used the same way in English. Ireneshusband 10:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I was aware of that – just wondered whether current Irish use is responsible for grouping it with punctuation marks. Wikipeditor 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The illustration is confusing because, one might think that the second symbol in the figure is the Tironian "z". If it is not can anybody add an illustration of Tironean "z" iether with a modern shape or with old photographed text? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.115.27.10 (talk) 22:22, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

I threw in the Old English info because I thought it was interesting. MadMaxBeyondThunderdome 07:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackletter image[edit]

I'm thinking about having the relevant characters on the blackletter image circled, because they're a little hard to see even with the directions in the caption. Is it just me or does anyone else agree? --tiny plastic Grey Knight 08:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot missing[edit]

This article mentions counts as high as 13000 signs within this notation (although with caveats about composites etc) but only really discusses one - the "7"-like "and" symbol - with a passing mention of one more ("shaped somewhat like a "z"").

So what were all the others? Can we have examples of what they looked like, and what kind of thing they were used for? Were there some that were very common and others more obscure - for counts as high as 13000, this must surely be the case, but is there anywhere we can find examples of each? Are there reference lists used by those reading old manuscripts? Or older ones used by those writing them? Is the system even fully understood, or do some remain to be decoded or have to be guessed from context? - IMSoP (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

the problem is encoding something written by hand digitally, the marks have to be drawn in illustrator so to have a table with the 4 verb conjugations and 5 noun declinations would take a long time without a digital pen thing and the page would get quite large... but if there are any specific word requests examples just ask. --Squidonius (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the clarification (here and on my talk page). I think the diagram now included goes a long way to addressing my original questions, in that it gives a "flavour" of what these thousands of signs looked like, and represented. I appreciate that digitizing such old hand-written scripts is a laborious process, and certainly wouldn't want someone devoting hours just to satisfy my passing curiosity!
I guess the only thing the article still doesn't really discuss, explicitly, is what level these signs were generally used at: were they mostly syllable/sound marks? Were words abbreviated to their primary letter/sound forms, or were complex marks created which specifically represented a particularly common word, regardless of its length? The example in that diagram implies that something is going on at the word level, but the text doesn't really address this.
Maybe that example could be picked apart a bit, giving some examples of particular signs which (as far as I can see) represent whole words, and how they relate to those in the table? - IMSoP (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, good point, that will be expanded. In brief, regarding your question, the ortography/phonetic divide does not exist in classical Latin, it is in fact a problem with romance langauges (for example, shoe is read "sh" (a sound not present in latin) plus the long vowel u:). Tironian notes do not follow fixed and easy rules (say teenagers allways write 8 in place of -ate or -ight) but are more a series of abbreviations used by convention. For adverbs the abbreviations are nearly unpredictable, whereas for adj, nouns and verbs the suffix which dictates the declension case or verb tense/person will be a specific marking on a warped letter, generally representing the first letter or syllable. --Squidonius (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Phonetic shorthand[edit]

Surely, this part of the article is inaccurate w/r/t text messaging, on-line chatting, and internet posting (4 for 'four,' b& for 'banned,' etc.) -114.91.66.133 (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-displaying character[edit]

In the section Current the following text appears:

The Tironian "et" can look very similar to an "r rotunda" (ꝛ), depending on the typeface.

Unfortunately, the charcter in parentheses fails to display on my system (ꝛ). Is there a universal method we can use to display that charcter? --Jubileeclipman 06:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  • For my part, I would like to know why I see this symbol just find when viewing wikipedia but not while viewing a mediawiki page or my own wiki. What is wikipedia doing different (or better)?
RiverStyx23{submarinetarget} 23:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Latin Extended-D, etc.[edit]

Some notes may have been added to Unicode by MUFI proposals. Review the Extended-D block chart and the list of Medievalist Additions. Other additions can be found here: Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement; Latin Extended Additional; Ancient SymbolsLokiClock (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In the references there is a website which is a scan of a MS by karl eberhand henke, which is really good and has a lot that can still be added (it is in German though), apparently Griechische Tachygraphie und Tironisch Noten is good, but is hard to find.
The main article does mention the MUFI initiative, although there are only 3 tironian notes in there I think. Unicode has mostly letter variants (which one day will be a page to join them up) and ligatures, which is quite odd as there are really few paleographic fonts (to the extent that the PC font "old english" is tragically used as a blackletter example in that page). The MUFI website has the proposals themselves and contains more useful information, the nordic text initiative is good too (for scribal abbreviations not TN). But I'll see if there are any in Unicode thanks.--Squidonius (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Likeness to "7"[edit]

I think it would be pertinent to the article to add that due to the Tironian 'et's likeness to the number "7", said number is used extensively in informal online writing in Irish (and possibly in Scots Gaelic, though I have no experience of that), particularly in the abreviation "7rl", also spelled"srl" which stands for " 's aráile/ is aráile/ agus aráile" meaning "etc...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.117 (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised to discover that the best substitute for the Tironian "et" is on the same key on my computer as the ampersand!