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 _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
