[DCRM-L] Tironian 'et' (was: RE: "[the]" versus "[th]e" (but definitely not "ye"))

[Erin Blake]

How large a sample set was used for determining that "what catalogers thought was the Tironian 'et' was really just an ampersand in black-letter typefaces"? People cataloging Scottish and Irish Gaelic imprints, for example, would see that an et-ligature glyph and a Tironian-et glyph are different (especially if they're using a font set or typewriter that has both, such as the Royal typewriter here: http://www.evertype.com/celtscript/type-keys.html, or Unicode). 

Note that 0G8.2 doesn't say *why* "&" is the exception to the rule about supplying the word in square brackets. 

Is it because only "matter that cannot be reproduced using available typographical facilities" is supplied in square brackets (0G1.2)? If so, catalogers with access to full Unicode, not just the MARC-8 character set, should be able to use U+0026 for the et-ligature version and U+204A for the Tironian-et version. 

Or is it because they are variant forms of the same thing, and "&" is the modern version, same as how both the long-s and the short-s can be represented in Unicode, but we transcribe both with the modern version, a short-s? If this is the case, would a modern Gaelic translation of DCRM(B) say to transcribe both the et-ligature form and the Tironian-et form as a Tironian et? See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pay_and_Display_sign_with_Tironian_et_for_Irish_agus.jpg for a modern Irish street sign with a Tironian-et.

See http://www.evertype.com/standards/iso10646/pdf/amperagus.pdf for excerpts from documents that show both forms. 

Erin.

----------------
Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Curator of Art & Special Collections  |  Folger Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20009  |  eblake at folger.edu  |  office tel. 202-675-0323  |  fax 202-675-0328  |  www.folger.edu

 ________________________________________
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] on behalf of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 1:57 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] "[the]" versus "[th]e" (but definitely not "ye")

At the 1999 annual meeting, Bib Standards discussed and confirmed that what we were calling a "Tironian et" should be transcribed as an '&'.

I did additional research on this in preparation for the DCRM Working conference in 2003.
What became clear is that what catalogers thought was the Tironian 'et' was really just an ampersand in black-letter typefaces, and therefore a complete analog with an ampersand in roman type, which is transcribed as '&'. I consulted Paul Needham (a prominent incunabulist) on his thoughts; he said he transcribed all sigla representing 'and' as ampersands. These arguments, along with the benediction of Paul Needham, carried the day.

[I don't remember if the following argument was brought up in committee deliberations, but it's how I think about it: Even if there are real Tironian notes in printed books, it is a siglum for 'and' in any language, and a symbol which *can* be reproduced typographically.]

In contrast, the argument for transcribing 'y[superscript e]' as [the] instead of [th]e, or 'q;' as '[que]' instead of q[ue], is that although there are recognizable letters, they do not stand alone, but are an integral part of symbol which cannot be reproduced typographically, and so the whole contraction symbol is expanded within square brackets.

At some point after DCRM(B) was published, there was a discussion--it may have been on this list--about the problem wording in 0G8.2: we really should have dropped any mention of the Tironian sign. We considered changing the wording when preparing for a later printing, but in the end decided to let it stand. It can be reconsidered for the joint DCRM.


-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Jennifer K. Nelson
Sent: Wednesday, 21 August, 2013 16:09
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] "[the]" versus "[th]e" (but definitely not "ye")

oops, in my second paragraph I meant to say "I think it makes much more sense in any case - whether in printed books or in manuscripts - to transcribe a Tironian note as *[et]*, when what it stands for is the word "et", not the symbol "&".

!!!!!


On 8/21/13 1:05 PM, Jennifer K. Nelson wrote:
> Hi Larry, everyone,
>
> Just to clarify: this came up in a general discussion, not
> specifically as related to manuscripts. I think our conversation
> started when we were looking at Appendix G to DCRM(B), specifically
> the instruction in G2 where it says to transcribe both the Tironian
> note and the ampersand as an ampersand (as well as "[Tironian note]c"
> as &c.). I think its the last example in the grid.
>
> Personally, I think it makes much more sense in any case - whether in
> printed books or in manuscripts - to transcribe a Tironian note as an
> ampersand, when what it stands for is the word [et], not the symbol "&".
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jenny
>
>
> On 8/21/13 12:00 PM, Laurence S. Creider wrote:
>> An additional argument of Jennifer's suggestion is that AMREMM
>> follows the same procedure, to wit, "0F8. Expand all suspensions,
>> contractions, nomina sacra, Tironian notes, symbols and other
>> abbreviations to the full form, enclosing suppolied letters or words
>> in square brackets. ... Do not reproduce Tironian notae, the
>> ampersand, or other symbols, but instead supply in square brackets
>> the letters or words for which they stand in the language of the
>> text."
>> The examples give transcription of the ampersand as [et] or [and] or
>> (this would depend on language), and to translate the Tironian note 7
>> as [et] or [and] or ....
>>
>> It would be nice if the same principle was adopted for the post-1600
>> notes here.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>> P.S. My initial reaction was what would Tironian notes be doing in a
>> 20th century ms, but Wikipedia says they are occasionally used from
>> the 17th century into the 20th.  That is one thing I enjoy about this
>> list; I learn a great deal.
>>
>

--
Jennifer K. Nelson
Reference Librarian
The Robbins Collection
UC Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall)
Berkeley, CA 94720
jnelson at law.berkeley.edu
Tel: 510.643.9709
Fax: 510.642.8325
www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/