Disputatio:Theoria musicae

Musica theorica? Quis hanc movit?--Ioscius ^(disp) 19:56, 18 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Gafurius et Euler ambo dicunt "theoria musicae"... Est quippe nomen libri Gafurii.--Ioscius ^(disp) 20:06, 18 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Quomodo de fontibus additis putas?--Ioscius ^(disp) 20:18, 18 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Musica Theorica

Unfortunately, my practical Latin is too bad to take part in a serious disputatione. My idea in moving Theoriam musicae was that in most latin sources, (speculative) music theory is referred to as musica theorica, as opposed to musica practica. But the tricky thing is that matters which we subsume under music theory today: counterpoint, harmony and the like, mostly belong to the realm of musica practica (which includes composition). Musica theorica is more about calculationem rationum, cosmologiam and that sort of thing. From this perspective, it would make sense to make a terminological distinction between mediaeval musica theorica and modern theoria or theorica musicae or musices. Anyway, I'm aware this needs more discussion... If you like my choice, we will have to change many nexos and categorias, as well. -- Mardilius 04:02, 19 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Some evidence: Google gives me over 500 hits for musica theorica, and 135 for theoria musicae. Also browse book titles in thesauro musicarum latinarum --Mardilius 04:27, 19 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

What do I think, Ioshe? I think musica theoria looks like a calque from English "music theory," and theoria musicae looks like "the theory of music." But take my opinion cum grano salis: I'm no expert on "music theory": as an undergraduate, I went through four semesters of a course in harmony and two semesters of a course in counterpoint and may never once in those courses have heard the word theory. The course in theory was for graduate students: its first semester started & ended with the ancient Greeks. ¶ Of course musica theorica is a different question. ¶ In any case, Latin of the Golden Age for "theory" was contemplatio (says my trusty dictionary). IacobusAmor 02:15, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Since Gafurius and others used theoria musice I think the pagina is fine now. I should rather add contens—but I need to study more latin first. -- Mardilius 05:28, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly do my best to render into latin what you would like to add. I largely gave up my music theory project for lack of knowing how to write about it in latin...--Ioscius ^(disp) 05:40, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Nuper emandata

Once again, I will copy Iacobus' comments here for convenience:

• <!--the study of how music works-->

OK, that paragraph wasn't written by Hypermaxx73, so it's not as much a concern of mine. Still, I'm not sure what you mean by this comment. Are you saying that's what the Latin *should* say? --Iustinus 19:04, 11 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

• <!--Sez who?-->

A valid question, though "citation needed" would have sufficed. I'm hoping Hypermaxx73 can (and will) answer this, as I know he's very interested in music theory in general. --Iustinus 19:04, 11 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Here's a reference for the information. Kostka, Stefan. 1999. Materials and Techniques of Twentieth-Century Music, p.76. I'm assuming it applies to the Western tradition of music, and perhaps not universally, since the model used was Mozart, and there's no suggestion in the text that the principle is universalized. The same information is mentioned in Robert Gauldin's A Practical Approach to Sixteenth-Century Counterpoint, which focuses (naturally) on the pre-baroque style composition. Hypermaxx73 23:00, 11 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Not universalized, but in your email you did say you felt his thesis was "used as a case study on a larger level...." Still, you do say "bonae modulationes debent habere easdem has res" which seems a bit prescriptive. --Iustinus 23:54, 11 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Of course. By universalized, I mean, across musical cultures. While ultimately it's descriptive of great composers of the past for music theorists and analysts, it's prescriptive for composers now, and I expect, to some unknown extent, even to some of the past composers themselves. I suppose I'm writing from a composer's point of view here. Hypermaxx73 01:58, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to "Ab Aevo Renatarum Artium et per saecula usque ad tempus nostrum, bonae modulationes debent habere easdem has res: motum plerumque gradualem, directionen [sic] melodiae post magna intervalla versam, et summum punctum prope mediam [sic] phrasis melodicae," that statement may be false, as it's not likely to be universally true, or even true of all Western music. It's certainly untrue of some famous Western melodies; for example, the highest point of the A-section of "Somewhere over the rainbow" isn't near the middle: it's the second note (repeated as the seventh), out of a total of twenty-three notes. One might save the allegation temporarily by prefixing it with "According to Stephanus Kostka, an American [?] music theorist," or something like that. IacobusAmor 23:47, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. I suppose my Latin didn't convey my intended meaning, which was my own oversight. By no means had I meant to say that all good melodies will always follow these rules, and we can come up with counter-anecdotes all day, but it's probably better to say that good melodies tend to follow these rules. Kostka acknowledged that there are differences, especially in 20th century melodies, that contribute to the characteristic sound. He, also, certainly wouldn't be the only one that's laid out these rules; the Gauldin text cites treatises from the 15th and 16th centuries from which he gets his descriptions of melodic tendency, which correlate with Kostka's claims. But I digress. Would you think it fair to say that good melodies will often follow these rules? Hypermaxx73 02:39, 13 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

• coadunatio{{dubsig}}<!--Non in Cassel's, ergo lectori explanandum est-->

You're kidding, right? Or is this some new policy la: has installed in my absence? Iacobe, you more than anyone else like to make arguments by comparing Vicipaedia to other reference sources... well does the wikipedia for *any* language require that Cassell's be the yardstick by which vocabulary is judged? I can't tell you how many times you and I have differed in opinion because I'm thinking in terms of a smaller wikipedia, and you're thinking in terms of en:. --Iustinus 19:04, 11 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Now that's so not fair! One is thinking of a wikipedia maybe three to four orders of magnitude larger than en:, when at last, realizing our founder's vision, en: shall have an article for every person alive, and perhaps even for every person known (or perhaps eventually reconstructible via DNA and other means) to have been alive! Not to mention an article on every named place, society, association, athletic team, school, commercial enterprise, and what-have-you that ever was in existence. It's going to happen. The only question is whether such data will be collected under one sited umbrella, or whether the world will be satisfied with programs, of which Google's search facility is a primitive instance, that for temporary use will bring desiderata together. IacobusAmor 21:55, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Why do you now want to turn la: to simple:? Furthermore, don't you think it's a bit strange to put {{dubsig}} on a direct quote? --Iustinus 19:04, 11 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Ioscius: "the dubsig and the note on casell's is bizarre, this is a direct quote... adunatio is a fine word, readunatio exists as well, what could be the possible confusion?"

Coadunatio isn't in Ainsworth's (18th century), Cassell's (1968), or The White Latin Dictionary (1928), so we may infer that it's unusual or exceedingly rare, almost certainly nonclassical, something that almost nobody will know, and it should therefore be explained. Quoting doesn't absolve scholars from expounding intelligibly. The fact that it's in a quotation doesn't make it immune to challenge. Decades of professional editing have taught that writers, even those famous in their field, are unable to copy texts without introducing errors. Just yesterday one edited an article by a professor in an academic department in a major university whose prose wrongly stated that X had "sat out to do something" (set) and that X had garnished people's interest (garnered). This isn't a matter of censure: it's just calling attention to human processes. Miscopying most often involves commas and other pesky punctuation marks, which at least in the text at hand are probably editorial. An editor's rule of thumb is that if something in a quote looks funny, it should be checked; often it'll be correct, but sometimes it won't be. IacobusAmor 21:55, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Coadunatio is indeed postclassical, but it regularly appears in late imperial legal texts, so it's not a made up word. --Iustinus 22:19, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Nobody reads late imperial legal texts. (Hyperbole!) IacobusAmor 23:47, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Even if it were a made up word, it's utterly transparent. --Iustinus 22:19, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

It was so obscure that maybe ten seconds' consideration of it (hey, we don't have all day here!) yielded no appropriate meaning. IacobusAmor 23:47, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

It would be bizarre to argue that Ucbaldus isn't an authority on the word that Ucbaldus used,

Nobody was arguing that: what was being suggested was that, since the word was unintelligible, it might have been miscopied into Vicipaedia. IacobusAmor 23:47, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

so I assume you are arguing the online text is corrupt—even so I am inclined to ask "just what is so implausible about coadunatio?" --Iustinus 22:19, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

If it relates to unire, that's an -i-stem, so the -a- of an underlying unare would be a surprise; natio coheres nicely, but then coadu- would make no sense, and Cassell's doesn't have any double prefixes in co- + ad-. IacobusAmor 23:47, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Still if the only authority you will accept is a lexicon written within the last two centuries, what is wrong with the L&S? cŏădūnātĭo, cŏ-ădūno. --Iustinus 22:19, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there it is! (and postclassical). IacobusAmor 23:47, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

I would also add that scientific binomial names are almost always nonclassical and not something that everybody will know. --Iustinus 22:21, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but their italicization sets them apart as binomials, and the context usually helps. IacobusAmor 23:47, 12 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

• <!--Was there a mangled quote in here?-->

No, just a sloppy C&P job. My fault I think. --Iustinus 19:04, 11 Iunii 2011 (UTC)

Oh, but thanks btw for the new paragraph, and the bibliography from en:. A staggering number of people have written about music theory in Latin, so this article would be an excellent candidate for a == Fontes == section, like I used to do. --Iustinus 19:06, 11 Iunii 2011 (UTC)