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

[Jessie Sherwood]

 Granted, I had paleographical training, but the Tironian et (including the
crossed Tironian et) never looks like an ampersand or any other ligature to
my eye. It always looks like itself and nothing else. Absent contemporary
evidence that the two were, in fact, designed "to look reasonable either
way," I don't think that there's any reason to suppose they were. An
Anglophone may not be able to hear the difference between u/ou, but that
doesn't mean that a Francophone can't.

For me the difficulty of treating ampersands and Tironian ets as
interchangeable is simply that it, like the ways we transcribe
abbreviations generally, can be confusing to anyone who is familiar with
early books/texts but *not* conversant with DCRMB. Before I learned DCRMB,
I often found the titles given in the catalogue perplexing and unhelpful (I
still sometimes find them perplexing and unhelpful). We're not attempting
quasi-facsimile transcription, but we're still attempting a transcription,
so it's helpful if readers/researchers/users can figure out what we did and
what we didn't do (this is the guiding principle for diplomatic
transcription).

If we're worried about people getting confused by ampersands and Tironian
ets, why not just follow the rule set out in 0G8.2 and "expand affected
words to their full form and enclose supplied letters in square brackets."
Full stop. Leave out the exceptions for contractions (not least because all
but two of the examples of early contractions in appendix G aren't
contractions at all, but suspensions and sigla), the ampersand, and the
Tironian et.

Deborah, in answer to your question, yes, other Tironian notes are used in
printed texts as abbreviations/brevigraph.

On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 16:45, Robert Maxwell <robert_maxwell at byu.edu>
wrote:

> Just to weigh in, I have to agree with Deborah and think we should
> continue to transcribe this as “&” for the reasons she gives.
>
>
>
> “A stylized Tironian "et" can look like an "e" and a "t" smooshed
> together, but not like an ampersand.”
>
>
>
> But that’s exactly what an ampersand is, an “e” and a “t” smooshed
> together. So if a stylized Tironian “et” can look like that, then there is
> certainly room for confusion.
>
>
>
> I note all the legacy data out there which might argue against changing
> practice midstream (though as they say the future is longer than the past).
>
>
>
> Taking the risk of sounding heretical, I also wonder what the harm of the
> current practice is. We’re not attempting quasi-facsimile transcriptions.
> Are there instances where issues or states would be distinguished by the
> presence of “7” vs. “&” in another state of the same manifestation?
>
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> Robert L. Maxwell
> Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
> 6728 Harold B. Lee Library
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> (801)422-5568
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> *On Behalf Of *Erin Blake
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 22, 2021 5:23 PM
> *To:* jcsherwood at law.berkeley.edu; DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Tironian "et" revisited: not an ampersand
>
>
>
> In fact, I think the confusion goes the other way around. A stylized
> Tironian "et" can look like an "e" and a "t" smooshed together, but not
> like an ampersand. It's a single piece of type that represents the
> coordinating conjunction in whatever language was being used, but it's a
> hybrid symbol in a transitional period, not one or the other.
>
>
>
> Sometimes the "and" character is obviously an ampersand (looks like "&"
> and is higher than the x-height), sometimes it's obviously a Tironian et
> (looks like 7 or a crossed 7 and does not extend above x-height), but
> others could go either way:
>
>    1. Looks like a 7 with a big curl leading up to it, like that font's
>    *x*, and mirroring that font's *h* and *n*, e.g.
>    https://www.e-rara.ch/zuz/content/zoom/165788 and
>    https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/22373003 (but could also be
>    seen as an e-t ligature that doesn't look like *&*)
>    2. Looks like a crossed 7 with a big curl leading up to it:
>    https://www.e-rara.ch/zuz/content/zoom/16181377 (but could also be
>    seen as an e-t ligature that doesn't look like *&*)
>    3. Looks like a crossed 7 with the top bar shortened, e.g.
>    https://www.e-rara.ch/gep_g/content/zoom/11506108 (but could also be
>    seen as an e-t ligature that doesn't look like *&*)
>
> It's not that catalogers are confusing a gothic *&* with a gothic *⁊*,
> (there are gothic fonts where it *is *obviously a *⁊*), it's that the
> single piece of type used for the coordinating conjunction was designed to
> look reasonable either way the reader is inclined to see it.
>
>
>
> if *&* and *⁊* do end up being treated differently in DCRMR, there needs
> to be an "in case of doubt" instruction pointing catalogers one way or the
> other.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 5:16 PM Jessie Sherwood <
> jcsherwood at law.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Deborah,
>
>
>
> For me, part of the difficulty of transcribing a Tironian et as an
> ampersand is that it's confusing for researchers/readers who do know the
> difference and it contributes to DCRMB's general inconsistency around
> transcribing abbreviations/brevigraphs, which is a headache for me whenever
> I work with incunabula (follow the rule or follow the examples? if I'm
> following the examples, which one do I take as a model?).
>
>
>
> I have seen Tironian ets in print, and my general sense is that while
> they're unusual in Roman and italic typefaces, they do show up in early
> blackletter, which is, not surprisingly, consistent with what was happening
> in manuscripts (and may be why I'm more familiar with them than those who
> work more with literature and the classics).
>
> Examples:
>
> https://www.loc.gov/cds/desktop/documents/DCRMBex/DCRMBex_01_ex01.pdf
>
> https://www.loc.gov/cds/desktop/documents/DCRMBex/DCRMBex_03_ex03.pdf
>
> https://www.loc.gov/cds/desktop/documents/DCRMBex/DCRMBex_05_ex05.pdf
>
> https://www.loc.gov/cds/desktop/documents/DCRMBex/DCRMBex_06_ex06.pdf
>
> https://www.loc.gov/cds/desktop/documents/DCRMBex/DCRMBex_09_ex09.pdf
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Jessie
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 12:55, Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at folger.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Counsel for the opposition reporting in.
>
>
>
> I'm no expert, but here's some of the context surrounding the decision to
> transcribe a 'Tironian et' as an ampersand. As Erin mentions, a lot of
> people were mistaking a blackletter ampersand for a Tironian et. I
> consulted Paul Needham, incunabulist. Skipping to the end of our
> conversation, he said that he transcribes all sigla representing 'and' in
> whatever language as an ampersand. This approach to transcribing all sigla
> representing 'and' in print simplifies things and doesn't require that a
> cataloger know what Tironian notes are.
>
>
>
> Almost all the opposition to this change came from folks in the manuscript
> community. This got me thinking "why."
>
>
>
>    - Tironian notes <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tironian_notes> were
>    developed as a system of shorthand. Can you call a symbol a Tironian et if
>    other notes from the system aren't also in use? I could argue that a
>    7-shaped symbol for 'and' is just a graphical variant of an ampersand, just
>    as both long and short s's are graphical variants of the letter 's'.
>    - The widespread misidentification of Tironian et, even by highly
>    experienced catalogers, argues for simplification of treatment in favor of
>    consistency of meaning.
>    - Tironian notes are a manuscript tradition. DCRM(B), and for the
>    moment DCRMR, concerns itself with printed text. I have limited experience
>    with incunables myself, but haven't seen use of Tironian notes (not just
>    the 'et') in use in print. I would be interested to be proved wrong.
>    - As a system of manuscript shorthand that doesn't generally apply to
>    printed text, it should be a part of manuscript-specific instructions. I
>    would further venture to argue that Tironian et's should only be considered
>    such when they are used with other Tironian notes as part of a system of
>    shorthand. Otherwise, it's just a siglum representing 'and' and the best
>    representation of that is an ampersand.
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________
>
> Deborah J Leslie, M.A., M.L.S. | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare
> Library | 201 East Capitol Street, S.E. Washington, DC 20003 |
> djleslie at folger.edu | www.folger.edu | Opinions her own
>
>
>
> *From:* DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> *On Behalf Of *Erin Blake
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 September, 2021 12:24
> *To:* DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [DCRM-L] Tironian "et" revisited: not an ampersand
>
>
>
> Belatedly realized that there's a super-easy way to tell the difference
> between a Tironian sign "et" and an ampersand, I just didn't think to
> articulate it before: an ampersand extends above x-height, a Tironian sign
> et does not.
>
>
>
> 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/G6_BCzp4MAt37BLHXdW1D?domain=urldefense.com>
>   |  Pronouns: she/her/hers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 5:28 PM Erin Blake <erin.blake.folger at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I think Jessie Sherwood is right: the bottom two examples are just fancy
> Tironian signs (and if I'd opened up my copy of Jean F. Preston and
> Laetitia Yeandle's *English Handwriting 1400-1650*, which was on my desk
> while I was writing, I'd have seen that their list of typographical
> examples includes the exact same shape as the first one).
>
>
>
> I was trying to make an e-t ligature out of them, but looking at
> handwritten Tironian "et" examples (and handwritten examples where "&"
> replaces the sound "et" in a word that isn't "and"), they're not
> [additional evidence: my own online folder of examples is called "Fancy
> Tironian et"].
>
>
>
> I'm going to update the blog accordingly.
>
>
>
> 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/G6_BCzp4MAt37BLHXdW1D?domain=urldefense.com>
>   |  Pronouns: she/her/hers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 5:14 PM Jessie Sherwood <
> jcsherwood at law.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> Also, to my eye, the bottom two examples under ampersand look more like
> Tironian ets with swanky approach strokes than e-t ligatures.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 12:43, Jessie Sherwood <
> jcsherwood at law.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> Is it time to move the Tironian sign "et" into DCRMR's "Brevigraphs"
> chart, leaving "&" behind in the "Early letterforms and symbols" chart?
>
>
>
> I think so. As you say, the Tironian et and the ampersand are not at all
> the same thing: & is a ligature, while the Tironian et is part an early
> form of shorthand.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 11:34, Erin Blake <erin.blake.folger at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Julie Kemper posed an excellent question on the Folger blog post about
> Brevigraphs
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/6CKXCADX3rHg8oYH9BRuS?domain=collation.folger.edu>
> 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://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/qkblCBBX3vS1ymofjH2yY?domain=listserver.lib.byu.edu>,
> then again in 2011
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/sa8ACDkZ3xi1ymPflBi4_?domain=listserver.lib.byu.edu>,
> and again in 2013
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/Y5cnCERX3ytmYGPCQUeX-?domain=listserver.lib.byu.edu>
> 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.*
> * [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.
> = & (Latin, see in context
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/2WTICG6X3AHm6lgC14cW3?domain=collation.folger.edu>
> )
> = & (English, see in context
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/Sus3CJ6K31HRVzXTyQFAd?domain=collation.folger.edu>
> )
>   = &c. (Latin, see in context
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/kZcKCKr73GUl6wJH2K9Ot?domain=collation.folger.edu>
> )
>
> *8.  [7 at beginning of word] *An alternative shape for *&*, but actually
> the Tironian short hand
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/PVVBCL913GTA7OvC5zTFe?domain=en.wikipedia.org>
>  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://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/7sY2CM8K3Xtg78lHNuMWG?domain=en.wikipedia.org>“)
> 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.
> = & (Latin, see in context
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/4su3CNkK3GiAzxRClfz4y?domain=collation.folger.edu>
> )
> = &[cetera] (Latin, with r-rotunda, see in context
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/2TUiCOYX3GiJMXGsR4xgC?domain=collation.folger.edu>;
> 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/G6_BCzp4MAt37BLHXdW1D?domain=urldefense.com>
>   |  Pronouns: she/her/hers
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jessie Sherwood, Ph.D., MLIS
>
> Associate Librarian
>
> The Robbins Collection
>
> UC Berkeley, School of Law
>
> Tel: 510.643.1236
>
> jcsherwood at law.berkeley.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jessie Sherwood, Ph.D., MLIS
>
> Associate Librarian
>
> The Robbins Collection
>
> UC Berkeley, School of Law
>
> Tel: 510.643.1236
>
> jcsherwood at law.berkeley.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jessie Sherwood, Ph.D., MLIS
>
> Associate Librarian
>
> The Robbins Collection
>
> UC Berkeley, School of Law
>
> Tel: 510.643.1236
>
> jcsherwood at law.berkeley.edu
>
>
>
>

-- 
Jessie Sherwood, Ph.D., MLIS
Associate Librarian
The Robbins Collection
UC Berkeley, School of Law
Tel: 510.643.1236
jcsherwood at law.berkeley.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20210923/584d4058/attachment-0001.htm>