On Sat, Jan 31, 2009, Richard Yates <[email protected]> said: > If either spot > is a typo, what would have been the correct symbol?
First problem is to determine what the intended note can or should be. Second issue is to consider what the compositor had to use. using ascii tab notation (please envision the dots over the X) X X. X: was one way, Petrucci used it. Others have used alphabetical symbols (such as X E T); the above two solutions are most conveniant as they only require one piece of type. Latin cardinals, ordinals etc for 10,11,12 are unhelpful as all abreviate ambiguously to d,u,d (decem, unidecim, duodecim). The alternative is to go to the punches (assuming you bought them or still have the services of the punchcutter), strike and justify new matrixes for XI and XII, then cast enough pieces to set the music. If you dont have the punches you then can debate the incoveniance and cost of seeing the local goldsmith or traveling to a book fair... If lineal width was not an issue, and the use of such high play was rare, it might be ok to use seperate pieces for X and I, and there might already be a ligatured II allowing X II with two pieces of type, but useing three pieces of type as in X I I is likely to be rather a bit wide when set; this might simply have arisen as an issue of typesetting. Each scribe had some scheme for labeling the frets, some were aware of traditional uses, others got inventive. Some publishers invented 'new and improved' ways to both confuse the reader and avoid patents; some with the encouragement of booksellers thinking to stimulate sales; that huckters pitch is an old one. Dana Emery To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
