Talk:Scribal abbreviation

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Deciphering scribal abbreviations (US Library of Congress)

Questionable abbreviations

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)[reply]

Glagolitic

Is a mention of Glagolitic ligatures suitable here?

Sure, go ahead! Adam Bishop 17:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigla

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)[reply]

YAS!

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)[reply]

CAPPELLI, not CAPELLI

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)[reply]

Duplicate Images

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)[reply]

where does the 'and' belong?

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)[reply]

Cappelli CRV?

There’s a comment at the top of the Cappelli-based section:

this is a translation nearly ad litteram (a bit reductive) of the book's preface with the addition of one or two English (Old Norse/English) specific notes so single citation should suffice (apart from additions).

That sounds as is it may be a copyright violation. — Christoph Päper 06:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really and sorry for the awkward, hastily written and cryptic sentence. The book, being Italian, goes on and on, and this is a much reduced version —initially I was planning to be quite thorough, though—, the section order matches and the terminology is calqued ad litteram, but in essence it a prose of the source. What I meant to say: I cannot be asked to put a ref tag after each fullstop as I used a single source.

The fact that there were some notes about OE gloss interspersed was a bit odd in hindsight and the fact that it does not follow the preceding sections is more of a problem.

Paleography is different from mathematics

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)[reply]

Adriano Cappelli’s Lexicon Abbreviaturarum

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

encoded examples

There are a number of {{R from Unicode}} redirects for this page. Could/should they be specifically listed and addressed here? ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 {{Unicode Chart Insular}}), 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)[reply]

Spanish plural abbreviations

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)[reply]

Spanish use of ꝑ for "por"?

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)[reply]

In Italian, × is exclusively used for "for", but in Florence the ꝑ abbreviation is in the logo of the cathedral, opera=oꝑa, which is a nice provable example. --82.14.186.85 (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A related discussion at Talk:Tilde#Unsourced text on Latin scribal abbreviations

Tilde § Abbreviations, which is about Latin scribal abbreviations, was unsourced. I found and added a source, but it contradicts the existing text (details at the talk page). I left the original assertions with {{Citation needed}}. If anyone has a better source or knowledge on this subject, please take a look at it. --Naruyoko (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]