Renaissanse Neo-Latin Ortography

I’ve searched the web far and wide, and the only souces I’ve found yet are some introductionary notes to some edition of a work by Descarte and some sparse comments on the Wikipedia article on Neo-Latin, but with that and some living (albeit really dead) examples, this is what I’ve understod so far:
´ is used where the accent is not on the antepaenult and before enclitics, sometimes above the q in -que, sometimes above a q as an abbreviation for -que.
` is used on adverbs and indeclenebilia, i.e. quam the adverb opposed to quam the relative feminine article, and on the præposition a.
^ is used on long vowels, whereelse the meaning would be uncertain, and almost always above ablatives. Sometimes abouve some of the endings in the fourth declension.
& is always used for et, and et in etc. thus &c.

So, dis-moi, how good have I done my homework? Am I wrong in any of my discoveries? Are there things I’ve missed?

Ps. Cœlum for cælum is somehow very, very cute… Ds.

I’m not really familiar with it. Adrianus will know (I think he uses it).

I’m secretly hoping for him to come to my rescue. Adriane, quo es tu?

ubi es tu

What you say is spot on, Hampie, except for the indeclinables: only a and e (those prepositions and not indeclinables generally) have graves with some writers and circumflexes with other. And only first declension singular ablative (not all ablatives). Also only the genitive singular of the fourth typically (though you will find someone doing a plural but that’s not what was taught).

Rectum est quod dicis, separatim de indeclinabilia: est à et è apud quosdem, â et ê praepositiones apud alios et non omnia indeclinabilia sic circumflectitur. Solus primae declinationis ablativus casus singulariter circumflectitur, non aliarum. Et genetivus singularis numeri plerumque quarti etiamsi quidam pluralem numerum sic denotabant (quod ludo non docebatur).

http://discourse.textkit.com/t/prosody-and-syllable-stress/5762/1

also this // etiam hoc

Agreed. I think “quō” means “to where?” rather than just “where?”

A good way to learn about early printed Latin orthography is just to work through a text you are interested in and see what you find - different authors and printers adhere to different practices, but if you read through several pages you will get a sense of what conventions that particular book is following.

One thing I don’t think anyone has mentioned here is the use of quum for “when” to distinguish from cum for “with” - you can see that here in a late 17th-century printed book of Aesop’s fables:
http://mythfolklore.net/aesopica/barlow/29.htm
look there for:
quum Canis confestim sese erigens…
cum ista tua Invidia

Also, it is very common to find a line written over a vowel to indicate nasalization (m or n) - this can happen either at the end of a word, or even inside a word: miserā = miseram, ferēdum = ferendum, extrahūt = extrahunt, for example.

You may also find ę for ae. For example: Quę sunt maximę divitię? non desiderare divitias.

Though I know for sure I’ve seen cùm and quàm, as well as eô (ablative of is, not first person singular of ire).

Of the ogoneced e and the line (or tilde!) above vowels (and m and n!), I knew – hovewer I’ve never heard of using quum and cum to denote difference between the meaning of cums. That is kind of cool.

You’re right. They distinguish adverbial use, don’t they? (quam eo pronomina sunt, et verbum eo, cum praepositio, cùm eô quàm adverbia)
Rectè dicis. Nonnè usum ut adverbium denotant?

Yea. It’s scary how many adverbs in Latin, that looks exactly like other words. Is there, perhaps, a list of such? Because they cannot be that many, can they?

Here’s my list of 1615 adverbs, Hampie, leaving aside most of those derivable from the adjective (which of course in first-second declension positive resemble the masc. vocative):
En ordo adverbiorum meus (e mille sescentis quindecim componitur —separatim alia ex adjectivis derivata quae declinationis secundae/primae et modi positivi similia casûs vocativi generis masculini sunt):

That siglum (¯ seu rectiùs ~ titulus) is being used in the later periods as a conventional abbreviation, I believe, more than a tonal accent since the authors will be pronouncing full m’s and n’s often. It’s just coincidentally very nice that the terminal m and n were often nazalized classically.

Tale siglum abbreviatio vera est, ut credo; sonum non indicat, cùm auctores aevorum post classicorum saepè m et n litteras plenas sonant. Concursu accidit id siglum consuetudini classicae prae m terminanti bellè aptum esse.

The nasalization is something I always wonder about: I got my start doing Latin from wanting to read Polish Renaissance authors and since Polish has abundant nasal vowels, I would imagine that the Polish Latin speakers were quite quick to nasalize their Latin also. If only we had the magic power to listen to their Latin conversations now to know what they sounded like… :slight_smile:

Quint. inst. 1, 7, 5 illa quoque seruata est a multis differentia, ut ‘ad’, cum esset praepositio, d litteram, cum autem coniunctio, t acciperet, itemque ‘cum’, si tempus significaret, per quom, si comitem, per c ac duas sequentis scriberetur.

If you enjoy this sort of thing, read the whole of inst. 1, 7. Just be sure to bring your grains of salt.