![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is this in “General punctuation” [1]? I've seen it used instead of the letters ‹et› in ‹etc.›, so it is more like an alphabetic presentation form in that (German) text. Is this a punctuation mark in Irish? Wikipeditor 12:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The illustration is confusing because, one might think that the second symbol in the figure is the Tironian "z". If it is not can anybody add an illustration of Tironean "z" iether with a modern shape or with old photographed text? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.115.27.10 ( talk) 22:22, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
I threw in the Old English info because I thought it was interesting. MadMaxBeyondThunderdome 07:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking about having the relevant characters on the blackletter image circled, because they're a little hard to see even with the directions in the caption. Is it just me or does anyone else agree? -- tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 08:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This article mentions counts as high as 13000 signs within this notation (although with caveats about composites etc) but only really discusses one - the "7"-like "and" symbol - with a passing mention of one more ("shaped somewhat like a "z"").
So what were all the others? Can we have examples of what they looked like, and what kind of thing they were used for? Were there some that were very common and others more obscure - for counts as high as 13000, this must surely be the case, but is there anywhere we can find examples of each? Are there reference lists used by those reading old manuscripts? Or older ones used by those writing them? Is the system even fully understood, or do some remain to be decoded or have to be guessed from context? - IMSoP ( talk) 19:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Surely, this part of the article is inaccurate w/r/t text messaging, on-line chatting, and internet posting (4 for 'four,' b& for 'banned,' etc.) - 114.91.66.133 ( talk) 05:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
In the section Current the following text appears:
The Tironian "et" can look very similar to an " r rotunda" (ꝛ), depending on the typeface.
Unfortunately, the charcter in parentheses fails to display on my system (ꝛ). Is there a universal method we can use to display that charcter? -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 06:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Some notes may have been added to Unicode by MUFI proposals. Review the Extended-D block chart and the list of Medievalist Additions. Other additions can be found here: Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement; Latin Extended Additional; Ancient Symbols ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be pertinent to the article to add that due to the Tironian 'et's likeness to the number "7", said number is used extensively in informal online writing in Irish (and possibly in Scots Gaelic, though I have no experience of that), particularly in the abreviation "7rl", also spelled"srl" which stands for " 's aráile/ is aráile/ agus aráile" meaning "etc...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.117 ( talk) 16:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
On Marcus Tullius Tiro it says that he died around 4 BC, also with sources. Does somebody have the overview to judge which sources are better? It would be nice to have consistency. Seattle Jörg ( talk) 13:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
In the image uxote ("wife") should be uxore Furius ( talk) 15:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
A regular editor here may be better able to answer the question at talk:Ampersand#Stenographic characteristics of Tironian et? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 09:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Further to my edit summary comment, there is no question the letter Ȝ/ȝ ( yogh) was sometimes rendered z, especially by typographers, in printed material. What is questionable is if the yogh, whether rendered as ȝ or z, once commonly (or ever) stood for et. Even if it did, it is still questionable whether it was a putative yogh-et, as opposed to the ⁊-et, that gave rise to the z in viz. Note that Yogh § Middle English presently contains a picture which per the caption in that section contains both a blackletter ȝ and ⁊ in close proximity, and it is the latter letter (heh) which here denotes et: "spede þe plouȝ: ⁊ sende us korne" (emphasis added). NB also the resemblance of the ornamental blackletter ⁊ to certain forms of the letter z. Finally, the hypotheses of the yogh-origin of the z in the abbreviated viz. and the Tironian et origin of the same cannot, strictly speaking, both be true. What might still be true is that, as is often the case in etymology, one of the two gave rise to the result (here: the viz-z) influenced by the other. This too however would need to be cited. On present evidence, it seems to me that an exclusive ⁊-origin of the viz-z is more likely, however better citations would be helpful in any case. — ReadOnlyAccount ( talk) 23:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
1. Scribal abbreviation of ⟨et⟩ as -et. habꝫ → habet(as opposed to a free-standing et [and]). I have no subject expertise, but seems credible. [See also Wiktionary viz. ]-- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 11:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
But perhaps more to the point, I don't see how this is valid:
and in the z of viz. (for et in videlicet – though here the z is derived from a Latin abbreviation sign, encoded as a casing pair U+A76A Ꝫ and U+A76B ꝫ
It is self evident that the word viz. does not use a yogh, any more than does the modern rendering of the surname Menzies (pronounced Mengis). Yes, historically they were handwritten with a yogh but for centuries a ⟨z⟩ has been used. Thus, IMO, the tironian note symbol is not still being used (whereas, as the image in the article demonstrates, the ⟨⁊⟩ does have continued use in Gaelic). So my inclination would be to solve two problems at once by removing that phrase. At the very least, it is OR. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 11:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Thus, IMO, the tironian note symbol is not still being used (whereas, as the image in the article demonstrates, the ⟨⁊⟩ does have continued use in Gaelic)." The reason I find that confusing is because the ⁊ is a Tironian note symbol, specifically the Tironian et, or, as Unicode calls it the ⁊ U+204A TIRONIAN SIGN ET (latterly also supplemented by a ⹒ TIRONIAN SIGN CAPITAL ET). This (green) quote reads as if you're making a distinction between "the tironian note symbol" and "the ⟨⁊⟩". (Btw., did you know your ⟨mathematical angle brackets⟩ are distinct from these 〈angle brackets〉? The More You Know☆…) If however you're not making a distinction, then the contradiction between ⁊ "not still being used" and its "continued used in Gaelic" seems jarring.
I have updated the article per above discussion. But viz. should never have been there in the first place because it was the wrong kind of et. It was a Scribal abbreviation, not a tironian note. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 12:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is this in “General punctuation” [1]? I've seen it used instead of the letters ‹et› in ‹etc.›, so it is more like an alphabetic presentation form in that (German) text. Is this a punctuation mark in Irish? Wikipeditor 12:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The illustration is confusing because, one might think that the second symbol in the figure is the Tironian "z". If it is not can anybody add an illustration of Tironean "z" iether with a modern shape or with old photographed text? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.115.27.10 ( talk) 22:22, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
I threw in the Old English info because I thought it was interesting. MadMaxBeyondThunderdome 07:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking about having the relevant characters on the blackletter image circled, because they're a little hard to see even with the directions in the caption. Is it just me or does anyone else agree? -- tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 08:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This article mentions counts as high as 13000 signs within this notation (although with caveats about composites etc) but only really discusses one - the "7"-like "and" symbol - with a passing mention of one more ("shaped somewhat like a "z"").
So what were all the others? Can we have examples of what they looked like, and what kind of thing they were used for? Were there some that were very common and others more obscure - for counts as high as 13000, this must surely be the case, but is there anywhere we can find examples of each? Are there reference lists used by those reading old manuscripts? Or older ones used by those writing them? Is the system even fully understood, or do some remain to be decoded or have to be guessed from context? - IMSoP ( talk) 19:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Surely, this part of the article is inaccurate w/r/t text messaging, on-line chatting, and internet posting (4 for 'four,' b& for 'banned,' etc.) - 114.91.66.133 ( talk) 05:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
In the section Current the following text appears:
The Tironian "et" can look very similar to an " r rotunda" (ꝛ), depending on the typeface.
Unfortunately, the charcter in parentheses fails to display on my system (ꝛ). Is there a universal method we can use to display that charcter? -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 06:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Some notes may have been added to Unicode by MUFI proposals. Review the Extended-D block chart and the list of Medievalist Additions. Other additions can be found here: Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement; Latin Extended Additional; Ancient Symbols ᛭ LokiClock ( talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be pertinent to the article to add that due to the Tironian 'et's likeness to the number "7", said number is used extensively in informal online writing in Irish (and possibly in Scots Gaelic, though I have no experience of that), particularly in the abreviation "7rl", also spelled"srl" which stands for " 's aráile/ is aráile/ agus aráile" meaning "etc...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.77.111.117 ( talk) 16:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
On Marcus Tullius Tiro it says that he died around 4 BC, also with sources. Does somebody have the overview to judge which sources are better? It would be nice to have consistency. Seattle Jörg ( talk) 13:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
In the image uxote ("wife") should be uxore Furius ( talk) 15:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
A regular editor here may be better able to answer the question at talk:Ampersand#Stenographic characteristics of Tironian et? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 09:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Further to my edit summary comment, there is no question the letter Ȝ/ȝ ( yogh) was sometimes rendered z, especially by typographers, in printed material. What is questionable is if the yogh, whether rendered as ȝ or z, once commonly (or ever) stood for et. Even if it did, it is still questionable whether it was a putative yogh-et, as opposed to the ⁊-et, that gave rise to the z in viz. Note that Yogh § Middle English presently contains a picture which per the caption in that section contains both a blackletter ȝ and ⁊ in close proximity, and it is the latter letter (heh) which here denotes et: "spede þe plouȝ: ⁊ sende us korne" (emphasis added). NB also the resemblance of the ornamental blackletter ⁊ to certain forms of the letter z. Finally, the hypotheses of the yogh-origin of the z in the abbreviated viz. and the Tironian et origin of the same cannot, strictly speaking, both be true. What might still be true is that, as is often the case in etymology, one of the two gave rise to the result (here: the viz-z) influenced by the other. This too however would need to be cited. On present evidence, it seems to me that an exclusive ⁊-origin of the viz-z is more likely, however better citations would be helpful in any case. — ReadOnlyAccount ( talk) 23:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
1. Scribal abbreviation of ⟨et⟩ as -et. habꝫ → habet(as opposed to a free-standing et [and]). I have no subject expertise, but seems credible. [See also Wiktionary viz. ]-- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 11:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
But perhaps more to the point, I don't see how this is valid:
and in the z of viz. (for et in videlicet – though here the z is derived from a Latin abbreviation sign, encoded as a casing pair U+A76A Ꝫ and U+A76B ꝫ
It is self evident that the word viz. does not use a yogh, any more than does the modern rendering of the surname Menzies (pronounced Mengis). Yes, historically they were handwritten with a yogh but for centuries a ⟨z⟩ has been used. Thus, IMO, the tironian note symbol is not still being used (whereas, as the image in the article demonstrates, the ⟨⁊⟩ does have continued use in Gaelic). So my inclination would be to solve two problems at once by removing that phrase. At the very least, it is OR. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 11:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Thus, IMO, the tironian note symbol is not still being used (whereas, as the image in the article demonstrates, the ⟨⁊⟩ does have continued use in Gaelic)." The reason I find that confusing is because the ⁊ is a Tironian note symbol, specifically the Tironian et, or, as Unicode calls it the ⁊ U+204A TIRONIAN SIGN ET (latterly also supplemented by a ⹒ TIRONIAN SIGN CAPITAL ET). This (green) quote reads as if you're making a distinction between "the tironian note symbol" and "the ⟨⁊⟩". (Btw., did you know your ⟨mathematical angle brackets⟩ are distinct from these 〈angle brackets〉? The More You Know☆…) If however you're not making a distinction, then the contradiction between ⁊ "not still being used" and its "continued used in Gaelic" seems jarring.
I have updated the article per above discussion. But viz. should never have been there in the first place because it was the wrong kind of et. It was a Scribal abbreviation, not a tironian note. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 12:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)