ron fernandez wrote: > Greetings, > > I could be wrong but from the context it appears to me that Pedro > Calderia Cabral made a simple typographical error in the first sentence, > I believe he meant to type violão instead of simply viola.
That's right. I got an email from him about it but you spotted it before I got around to notifying the list. Pedro Caldeira Cabral wrote: > Thank you for the forward of my previous message. > The first word is of course VIOLAO (the aumentative form for VIOLA).I > apologise for my mistake. > Otherwise nothing makes any sense at all. ron fernandez wrote: > In this discussion of nomeclature it is important to realize that the > meaning of words changes over time and from context to context. Very true and important words, Ron. Cabral says he prefers to study actual instruments and iconographic evidence. That is something I wholeheartedly agree to but we simply can't just ignore written sources. Not only because we need every little scrap of evidence we can find to get as complete a picture of the past as possible but also because they can offer information the instruments themselves can never ever provide. But we can only learn from those written accounts if we understand the language used. The cittern is especially problematic here of course. How much of the instrument's history is still undiscovered or even lost forever simply because it keeps being confused with all kinds of other instruments? Frank Nordberg http://www.musicaviva.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
