Talk:Scribal abbreviation

message: 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)

message: Is a mention of Glagolitic ligatures suitable here?
:Sure, go ahead! Adam Bishop 17:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glagolitic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sigla 

message: 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)
thread_title:  YAS! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CAPPELLI, not CAPELLI 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Duplicate Images 

message: : 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)
thread_title:  where does the 'and' belong? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Paleography is different from mathematics 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Adriano Cappelli’s ''Lexicon Abbrevi<u>atur</u>arum'' 

message: There are a number of  redirects for this page. Could/should they be specifically listed and addressed here? ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but only if the characters are worth discussing in their own right. They should not be listed merely because some redirects point here. Gorobay (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not solely because there are redirects, any more than I'd suggest specifically addressing (e.g.) a variant spelling that redirected to an article. Any number of articles list the things covered by the article (for relatively small sets of things—currently 152 here, debatable whether that is "small" or not), with illustrations as necessary. When those things are characters, illustrating with the character itself, and mentioning which fonts provide those glyphs, is fairly common. E.g. Insular script, emoji. When someone is chasing down a specific character, they probably want to know more about that one specifically. A list, or table (a la ), to note "This subset of the subject matter is significant in this way" doesn't seem unreasonable to me. The individual characters (e.g. ꝷ) may not be worth discussion—that's why they're only redirects—but collectively the encoded subset is. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  encoded examples 

message: Would this be the right place to mention Spanish plural abbreviations such as CC.OO. for Comisiones Obreras or EE.UU. for Estados Unidos de América? --Error (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish plural abbreviations 

message: I am pretty sure I've seen people use ꝑ to abbreviate por in handwritten Spanish at some point in the past 25 years. It's certainly not as common as × for por, but I think it's out there. Has anyone else seen this? If so, can anyone find proper documentation on it? Lereman (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish use of ꝑ for "por"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Scribal abbreviation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090127061209/http://unicode.org/press/pr-5.1.html to http://www.unicode.org/press/pr-5.1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061116031901/http://theleme.enc.sorbonne.fr/document35.html to http://theleme.enc.sorbonne.fr/document35.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified