From: Andreas Stötzner (as@signographie.de)
Date: Mon Jan 07 2008 - 04:18:45 CST
Am 06.01.2008 um 23:01 schrieb André Szabolcs Szelp:
> …
> Andreas, I like the 1940 dictionary you presented, though I'm still
> missing the exact signatures of both works on your homepage.
If that is of any importance to you:
Langenscheidts Taschenwörterbuch der französischen und deutschen
Sprache.
Erster Teil Französisch-Deutsch, Neubearbeitung von H. Schwarz; 8.
Aufl.
Langenscheidtsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Berlin 1929.
Langenscheidts Taschenwörterbuch der Italienischen und deutschen
Sprache.
Erster Teil Italienisch-Deutsch, Neubearbeitung von Dr. Rudolf Stoff;
1. Aufl.
Langenscheidtsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Berlin 1940.
> …
> I believe it was Kent who noted an l-i ligature. I believe from
> looking at the picutes that it's actually a fraktur l and antiqua
> superscript i digraph instead. Though they might be ligated. Combining
> fraktur and antiqua glyphs to represent a single phoneme is not
> unprecedented, see the d[Gj] digraph for the dzh sound which features
> a fradtur d. Andreas, could you post some higher-resolution scans of
> the mentioned [li] please? I'd be thankful.
It’s both Fraktur l and superscript i, though not actually ligated but
cast onto one single body.
>
> A last question: is that an Latin small R with Ogonek on the scan
> saying (instance marked with <>): "_Lateinische_Buchstaben_ oder
> _Zeichen_ (o, [Gj], [nj], <r>) bezeichnen italienische Laute [...]"?
> It seems to be one on that scan, though not on the one below detailing
> the pronunciation. An argument being a not-simple letter would be its
> position not after the o ("Lateinische Buchstaben"), but rather being
> grouped with [Gj] and [nj] ("Zeichen").
It is just a fluff on the scan.
A:S
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 07 2008 - 04:22:29 CST