I am looking at a short passage from Odington's treaty on music, and am unsure about the last bit, particularly the meaning of "abiectus" in this context. I admit to having limited skill reading Latin---I studied it some time ago in my undergrad, but have sense not really used it---but in doing some of my recent research into music intonation, I found this passage to be extremely interesting. I've included the entirety (about a paragraph) in case I have made grave errors else where and to help with context, but I would like to fully understand the last sentence in particular. Adiectus ... abandoned??
Per praedicta patet quod diapason cum diatessaron non est symphonia, quoniam si hi numeri disponantur, 6, 12, fit diapason. Si autem numero 12 intendatur diatessaron, scilicet 16, fiet proportio 16 ad 6, duplex superbipartiens, quae prius repudiata est.
By the above it is known that the octave with the fourth is not harmonious,
since if these numbers are laid out, 6, 12, makes an octave.
However, if the fourth is stretched by the number 12, namely 16,
it will become the proportion 16 to 6, double super-bipartient, which was previously rejected.
Verumtamen plures opinione Ptolomei decepti aestimant consonantiam esse, qui dicit quod consonum, sicut denario numero additus alius numerus, servatur nec immutatur, ut additis duorum denariorum fit 12, ecce binarius servatur nec immutatur.
Nevertheless, many deceived by the opinion of Ptolemy determine consonance to be,
who says what is consonant, just as another number added to the number ten,
is preserved and not altered, so that adding two and ten makes 12,
this binary is preserved and not altered.
Et idem de ditono et semiditono dicunt quod quemadmodum concordant in simplici ita in composito, id est adiecti diapason. Sed huiusmodi oppositum prius probatum est.
And they said the same about the ditone and the semiditone
that just as they agree in simplicity thus too as composite,
that is, added to the octave.
But likewise the opposite was previously accepted.
Et etiam quod in simplici non sunt consonantiae quia sunt in specie superpartiente et in composito sunt in multiplici superpartiente, unde ad hoc quod dicitur, consonum adveniens consono non facit dissonum, falsum est quod diapente adveniens diapente facit dissonum
And furthermore, that in simplicity they are not consonances
because they are in superpartient quality and are composite, and are a superpartient multiple,
to this end what is said,
a consonance added to a consonance does not make a dissonance,
it is a falsehood that a fifth added to a fifth makes a dissonance.
Abiectus enim tonus faceret symphoniam quia bis diapente diapason excedit tono, ut patet in his numeris.
Namely, the abandoned tone might make harmony
because the double fifth exceeds the octave by a tone,
as it is known in these numbers.
