[DCRM-L] Tironian "et" revisited: not an ampersand

[Erin Blake]

Julie Kemper posed an excellent question on the Folger blog post about
Brevigraphs <https://collation.folger.edu/brevigraphs> last week, "

> One question I have is why ampersands and Tironian notes are treated the
> same. To me they are separate symbols and ampersands should be transcribed
> as “&” while Tironian notes should be transcribed as “[et]”. Am I being
> overly pedantic about something which hardly anyone cares about?


That gave me a deja-vu feeling, so I went to the DCRM-L archives, and sure
enough, back in 2003
<https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/2003-March/000423.html>,
then again in 2011
<https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/2011-August/002495.html>,
and again in 2013
<https://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/2013-September/003226.html>
the collective "we" of this list identified the instruction to transcribe a
Tironian sign “et” (⁊) as an ampersand as a problem: mounting evidence
showed that "[et]" would be a more appropriate transcription than "&"  but
the problem was set aside until "the joint DCRM" was being written. In
other words, the time is now.

Looking back at the discussions, I think the problem originated because
gothic type ampersands (in no. 1 of the blog post, an "e" and "t" combined)
were being conflated with the Tironian sign "et" (no. 8, short-hand
representation of the sound "et"):

> *1.* * [image: &]*
> *[ampersand]*This is the easy one. Ampersands are still in use today, so
> instead of expanding the brevigraph *&* in square brackets, rare
> materials catalogers simply use an ampersand.
> [image: &]= & (Latin, see in context
> <http://collation.folger.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/09/Ampersand_in_context.jpg>
> )
> = & (English, see in context
> <http://collation.folger.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/09/et_in_context.jpg>
> )
>   = &c. (Latin, see in context
> <http://collation.folger.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/09/etc_in_context.jpg>
> )
> *8.  *[image: Tironian sign et]
> *[7 at beginning of word]*An alternative shape for *&*, but actually the Tironian
> short hand <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tironian_notes> symbol *⁊*,
> which represents the *sound* “et” (rather than the word as such). If a
> particular font didn’t have a dedicated Tironian sign et, then *ꝛ* (a
> small “r rotunda <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_rotunda>“) could be
> used. Because the symbol is a representation of *&* and because *&* is
> still used today, rare materials catalogers silently replace it with *&*.
> See no. 1 for ampersandy ampersands.
> [image: Tironian sign et]= & (Latin, see in context
> <http://collation.folger.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/09/Tironian_sign_et_in_context.jpg>
> )
> [image: &[cetera]]= &[cetera] (Latin, with r-rotunda, see in context
> <http://collation.folger.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/09/etcetera_in_context.jpg>;
> see no. 3 for [cetera])

Is it time to move the Tironian sign "et" into DCRMR's "Brevigraphs" chart,
leaving "&" behind in the "Early letterforms and symbols" chart?

Thanks,

Erin.

______________________
Erin Blake, Ph.D.  |  Senior Cataloger  |  Folger Shakespeare Library  |
201 E. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC, 20003  |  eblake at folger.edu  |
www.folger.edu
<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/-t5RCjRgpBtArRXC7R7_2?domain=urldefense.com>
  |  Pronouns: she/her/hers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20210920/6528f6fc/attachment.htm>