In the edition which I use, there is one place of mistake in Daniel Papenbroeck,Propylaeum antiquarium circa veri ac falsi discrimen in vetustis membranis,pars II, caput II,sec. 18.
"Ipsi deinde positioni lapidis non dicuntur adfuisse, qui primi solebant in Actibus publicis adesse Episcopo, "Archipresbyter, Archidiaconus, Primicerius", quique reipsa primi subscripsere diplomati Episcopi Speciosi: sed gesta res dicitur "praesentibus Mauritio, Cionio", etc. "omnibus Eccl. Florentinae Presbyteris";ubi et lo "omnibus" novitatem phrasis maximam indicat, et "Ardingus a S. Geminiano" nominatur tanto prius quam oppidum illud aedificaretur, quod solum anno "DCCLVIII" factum sub Desiderio Rege notavit Reverendissimus Eugenius Gamurrini, Ordinis Cassinensis Abbas, et Magni Hetruriae Ducis familiaris Theologus, Historia Genealogica illustrium familiarum Hetruriae atque Umbiae feliciter elucidata clarissimus.
I think that the phrase "ubi et lo" or "ubi et to" is mistaken.Would you please teach me the correct spelling of this phrase ?
> In the edition which I use, there is one place of mistake in Daniel > Papenbroeck,Propylaeum antiquarium circa veri ac falsi discrimen in > vetustis membranis,pars II, caput II,sec. 18.
> "Ipsi deinde positioni lapidis non dicuntur adfuisse, qui primi > solebant in Actibus publicis adesse Episcopo, "Archipresbyter, > Archidiaconus, Primicerius", quique reipsa primi subscripsere > diplomati Episcopi Speciosi: sed gesta res dicitur "praesentibus > Mauritio, Cionio", etc. "omnibus Eccl. Florentinae Presbyteris";ubi et > lo "omnibus" novitatem phrasis maximam indicat, et "Ardingus a S. > Geminiano" nominatur tanto prius quam oppidum illud aedificaretur, > quod solum anno "DCCLVIII" factum sub Desiderio Rege notavit > Reverendissimus Eugenius Gamurrini, Ordinis Cassinensis Abbas, et > Magni Hetruriae Ducis familiaris Theologus, Historia Genealogica > illustrium familiarum Hetruriae atque Umbiae feliciter elucidata > clarissimus.
> I think that the phrase "ubi et lo" or "ubi et to" is mistaken.Would > you please teach me the correct spelling of this phrase ?
I haven't got a copy of the thing, but I have some ideas which might be worth expressing.
Firstly, it seems to read just fine without the "lo". Where both "omnibus" displays extreme strangeness of phrasing, and "Ardingus a S. Geminiano" is named such a long time before that town was built. Secondly, "lo" would be acceptable in a Spanish document; lo "omnibus" meaning "the 'omnibus' ". Unless, of course, it's just random marks from the press; or even "ten" as an annotation.
> <keyuk...@navy.plala.or.jp> wrote in message > news:2a936543-d37a-4561-9e66-5b077d6622db@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com... >> In the edition which I use, there is one place of mistake in Daniel >> Papenbroeck,Propylaeum antiquarium circa veri ac falsi discrimen in >> vetustis membranis,pars II, caput II,sec. 18.
>> "Ipsi deinde positioni lapidis non dicuntur adfuisse, qui primi >> solebant in Actibus publicis adesse Episcopo, "Archipresbyter, >> Archidiaconus, Primicerius", quique reipsa primi subscripsere >> diplomati Episcopi Speciosi: sed gesta res dicitur "praesentibus >> Mauritio, Cionio", etc. "omnibus Eccl. Florentinae Presbyteris";ubi >> et >> lo "omnibus" novitatem phrasis maximam indicat, et "Ardingus a S. >> Geminiano" nominatur tanto prius quam oppidum illud aedificaretur, >> quod solum anno "DCCLVIII" factum sub Desiderio Rege notavit >> Reverendissimus Eugenius Gamurrini, Ordinis Cassinensis Abbas, et >> Magni Hetruriae Ducis familiaris Theologus, Historia Genealogica >> illustrium familiarum Hetruriae atque Umbiae feliciter elucidata >> clarissimus.
>> I think that the phrase "ubi et lo" or "ubi et to" is mistaken.Would >> you please teach me the correct spelling of this phrase ?
> I haven't got a copy of the thing, but I have some ideas which might > be worth expressing.
> Firstly, it seems to read just fine without the "lo". Where both > "omnibus" displays extreme strangeness of phrasing, and "Ardingus a S. > Geminiano" is named such a long time before that town was built. > Secondly, "lo" would be acceptable in a Spanish document; lo "omnibus" > meaning "the 'omnibus' ". Unless, of course, it's just random marks > from the press; or even "ten" as an annotation.
> Ed
Another thought. Does Daniel Papenbroek ever use Greek words in his book? To (το) = Spanish lo.
>> <keyuk...@navy.plala.or.jp> wrote in message >> news:2a936543-d37a-4561-9e66-5b077d6622db@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com... >>> In the edition which I use, there is one place of mistake in Daniel >>> Papenbroeck,Propylaeum antiquarium circa veri ac falsi discrimen in >>> vetustis membranis,pars II, caput II,sec. 18.
>>> "Ipsi deinde positioni lapidis non dicuntur adfuisse, qui primi >>> solebant in Actibus publicis adesse Episcopo, "Archipresbyter, >>> Archidiaconus, Primicerius", quique reipsa primi subscripsere >>> diplomati Episcopi Speciosi: sed gesta res dicitur "praesentibus >>> Mauritio, Cionio", etc. "omnibus Eccl. Florentinae Presbyteris";ubi >>> et >>> lo "omnibus" novitatem phrasis maximam indicat, et "Ardingus a S. >>> Geminiano" nominatur tanto prius quam oppidum illud aedificaretur, >>> quod solum anno "DCCLVIII" factum sub Desiderio Rege notavit >>> Reverendissimus Eugenius Gamurrini, Ordinis Cassinensis Abbas, et >>> Magni Hetruriae Ducis familiaris Theologus, Historia Genealogica >>> illustrium familiarum Hetruriae atque Umbiae feliciter elucidata >>> clarissimus.
>>> I think that the phrase "ubi et lo" or "ubi et to" is mistaken.Would >>> you please teach me the correct spelling of this phrase ?
>> I haven't got a copy of the thing, but I have some ideas which might >> be worth expressing.
>> Firstly, it seems to read just fine without the "lo". Where both >> "omnibus" displays extreme strangeness of phrasing, and "Ardingus a S. >> Geminiano" is named such a long time before that town was built. >> Secondly, "lo" would be acceptable in a Spanish document; lo "omnibus" >> meaning "the 'omnibus' ". Unless, of course, it's just random marks >> from the press; or even "ten" as an annotation.
> Another thought. Does Daniel Papenbroek ever use Greek words in his > book? To (??) = Spanish lo.
Good thought. I've seen "to" used elsewhere to supply an article in late Latin, and if the old "long" form of tau were used (written with a single stroke from top to bottom), it would look very similar to "lo".
