Re: mensural notation improvements (issue3797046)

[Lukas Pietsch]

On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 10:49 +0100, Benkő Pál wrote:

> > According to Apel (1962: 99), the general rule would seem to be that the dot
> > should be on the right if it applies to the final note of the whole
> > ligature, but on top if it is anywhere else (flexa or no flexa). He has one
> > example of a flexa followed by several square notes, with a dot above the
> > following square note (i.e. in a position that happens to be also just to
> > the right of the flexa), but the dot is meant to apply to the square note
> > over which it stands, not the flexa.
> 
> When I have time to go to the library, I'll look up Apel again,
> which codex it is, but if you have a handy scan available (even
> better: a link, e.g. to IMSLP or DIAMM), I'd love to see it.
> 
> But let me reiterate: I've seen several codices, and only one
> diverges from the usage I implemented, and even that diverges
> only in dotting not only the first but the last note of a flexa
> above as well.  I know that ligatures are not too frequent,
> dotted notes within ligatures are extremely rare, but even the
> two examples I linked clearly dot notes contrary to the Apel way.
> I'll try to find an example where a non-final square note is
> dotted and the following note is below it (in the linked examples
> the next notes are above, so the dot of the first note appears
> _below_ the next note).
> 
> p

Yep, I can see the examples you describe, you are right about them
contradicting Apel's rule. Unfortunately, the examples Apel gives are
schematic self-drawn ones in the text, thus possibly constructed. I
could not quickly find a relevant example in any of the actual
facsimiles in the book.
Lukas