Timeline for Does the abbreviation “ſ.” in this 1755 work mean “sine”?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 22, 2021 at 20:21 | comment | added | Rafael | @KRyan But note that in both cases the German equivalent is Essig (i.e., vinegar). I still find plausible that the lack of overlapping is simply due to a pre-scientific accuracy standard for the text. | |
| Nov 22, 2021 at 20:15 | comment | added | Rafael | @KRyan, good point | |
| Nov 22, 2021 at 18:20 | comment | added | KRyan | @Rafael If the two entries were the same aside from the ordering/alphabetizing, yes, it would make sense. But the author lists different symbols under each version, implying that “acetum ſ. vinum mortuum” and “vinum mortuum, ſ. acetum” refer to different things in the author’s mind. Perhaps the author just made a mistake, but I still find that very hard to believe since one would expect that if he had forgotten that he’d already done “acetum ſ. vinum mortuum,” he would include (at least some of) the same symbols under “vinum mortuum, ſ. acetum.” There is no overlap. | |
| Nov 22, 2021 at 18:09 | comment | added | Rafael | @KRyan, it's arguably not just two separate entries for the same thing if they're synonyms and the editor expects the user/reader to look for either form in a glossary. FWIW it also makes perfect sense to me the sive reading. Moreover, dead wine, and fermented/expired wine (i.e., vinegar) look very close in meaning. | |
| Nov 22, 2021 at 16:38 | history | edited | fdb | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Nov 22, 2021 at 16:03 | comment | added | cmw♦ | @KRyan Cf. this thread and its comments. It's a very standard abbreviation. | |
| Nov 22, 2021 at 15:09 | comment | added | fdb | "Sine" would be followed by a noun in the ablative case. "Acetum" and "vinum" are in the nominative. | |
| Nov 22, 2021 at 15:03 | comment | added | KRyan | I’m going to need to see some kind of evidence for that, because while it’s entirely possible that the author just messed up an included two separate entries for the same thing, it seems hard to just assume that. | |
| Nov 22, 2021 at 14:59 | history | answered | fdb | CC BY-SA 4.0 |