Emil B. Wojtacki wrote:
> [...] there is nothing to win by decomposing liquescent strophices.
Fair enough.
If we're at it, I should add that the two puncta aucta from multi-note
forms are also being used as standalone neumes. The Gregor und Taube
edition Emil linked to clearly shows that. Both puncta thus should
probably end up in the single-note section. (That would leave the
multiple-note one with only those glyphs that by their very nature exist
only in connection with other glyphs.)
>>> My second suggestion is to add glyphs of ligatures for breves and
>>> semibreves in mensural notation [...] in slanted version of
>>> different span (2nd-5th), both upwards and downwards.
>>
>> We had these as separate glyphs at some point [...] but in the end it
>> was determined that they were redundant, and the glyphs in the
>> 'Medieval and Renaissance plainchant multi-form notes' range could be
>> used in their stead. Is there now consensus that this is incorrect?
>
> In some circumstances (for instance, when certain
> conjectures/emendations must be discussed in details), there is a
> really strong need of these symbols.
I second that. For example, in Willi Apel's Notation of Polyphonic
Music, the section on Notational Signs in White Mensural Notation
(pp 87–95) is full of ligatures, with their meaning and ambiguities
discussed, that are rendered with the glyphs Emil talks about.
Regards,
Grzegorz Rolek
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <
[hidden email]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <
[hidden email]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <
[hidden email]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <
[hidden email]>
Send administrative queries to <
[hidden email]>
Locked
