Shortening graph

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abbreviated graph is any reduction in spelling that is identical in meaning to normal spelling, provided this is achieved using systematic means. The restriction “with systematic means” is essential, since comparable results could also be achieved by mixing means of different writing systems. In contrast to the term Abbreviatur , it should be noted here that it is to be interpreted as that specific type of shortening graph that does not come about through the modification of systemic forms or their replacement by others. Another necessary distinction is the opposition of orthographically standardized vs. non-standard shortening graphs. While in modern writing languages ​​the purpose of shortening graphics is limited to efficiency and clarity, in the Middle Ages the texts were not only handwritten, but also intended for official and national use, whereby form and formalities were determined by a wide variety of motifs. A distinction must be made between the following reduction options:

  1. Change of homonymous basic graphs,
  2. Tachygraphs ( apostrophe , double acute , double gravure etc.),
  3. Ideograms (numerical, metagraphical),
  4. Special ligatures ,
  5. morphological variation of letters,
  6. Enrollment and inclusion,
  7. Subscription,
  8. Suprascription,
  9. Deletion of parts of the word by contractionem or by suspensionem.

It should be noted that the term eradication is to be understood here only in the sense of leaving out parts of the word and not as shaving, expanding or deleting. The abbreviations described are used individually and in combination, especially in ligature script from the 13th century . At this point it should be noted that the means of shortening are closely related to the palaeographic development and are therefore unevenly distributed among the different fonts. In the case of mixed abbreviation schemes and pure superscripts, the supralinear designation was dispensed with to varying degrees, since morphologically well-suited forms, such as in Cyrillic , can also fulfill the highlighting function alone. The set of instruments described allows different intentions and fulfills several functions, such as B .:

  1. Space savings through line utilization,
  2. Emphasis,
  3. Classification of lexical units,
  4. Font decoration for aesthetic reasons.

In contrast to similar means today, shortening graphics are used in church texts less for the purpose of efficiency and saving energy, time and material, but rather for different, at least equally important, motives, such as B. in the case of abbreviation of holy names and designations ( Nomina Sacra ), in which the classificatory function clearly dominates the function of saving space by placing parts of several words in superscript. In addition, the aesthetic function with the highlighting-classifying such is then shown to advantage in headings and subscriptions. The choice of the means available is always subject to extensive rules. In particular, the Old Church Slavonic shortening graphic is predominantly defined for certain word groups and is also determined by space within the line, word separation rules and character morphology. In this context, the priority of aesthetic-technical, semantic and lexemographic principles in the context of shortening graphics represents their essential difference compared to normal graphics with an alphabetic-phonographic system based on the priority of the phonetic principle. Shortening schemes through suprascription and erasure prove to be special efficient. A basic distinction must be made between the following forms:

  1. pure contraction ,
  2. Suprascription contraction,
  3. pure suspension ,
  4. Suprascription suspension,
  5. neutral suprascription.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c Miklas, H. (1995). On the typology of old Cyrillic shortening graphics, in: Polata knigopisnaja -an information bulletin devoted to the study of early slavic books, texts and literatures. 27-28 (Amsterdam). pp. 37-60.
  2. ↑ a b c Berlinski Sbornik. Complete study edition in the original format by Ms. (slav.) Wuk 48 from the property of the State Library of Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin, and by Ms. 0. p. I. 15 of the State Public Library “ME Saltykov-Ščedrin”, Leningrad. Introduced and edited with additions from other sources by Heinz Miklas. With an appendix by Vjačeslav M. Zagrebin (Codices selecti 79). Graz: Academic printing and printing Verlagsanstalt, 1988 (115 pages introduction and 367 texts in reprography).
  3. ↑ a b c Berlinski Sbornik. Srednobălgarski pametnik ot načaloto na XIV vek, s dopălnenija ot drugi răkopisi. Izdanieto e podgotveno ot Chajnc Miklas, Lora Taseva, Marija Jovčeva / Berlinski Sbornik. A Church Slavonic monument to the Central Bulgarian editors from the beginning of the 14th century, supplemented from other handwritten sources. Edited by Heinz Miklas, Lora Taseva, Marija Jovčeva (Austrian Academy of Sciences, Philosophical-Historical Class, Writings of the Balkan Commission, Vol. 47, Fontes No. 3). Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Cyrillomethodian Research Center / Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences, 2006 (457 pages).