Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.

--- gr_indiv:0587 [2025/11/17 17:05] – xaverkainzbauer
+++ gr_indiv:0587 [2025/11/22 10:40] (aktuell) – xaverkainzbauer
@@ Zeile 22: / Zeile 22: @@
 B33 und Zt notiern wie üblich keine Verse. A+Y bringen zwei Prosulae zu den Versen 2 und 3.
-<fc #4682b4>"sedi-//mus//"</fc> Wenn Kl auch si-be-molle ("sa") schreibt, stellt sich doch die Frage, ob nicht wegen des Kontextes mit "do" und "mi" ("//se//-di-//mus//") doch ein 'si-be-durum' ("si") angebracht ist.
+<fc #4682b4>"sedi-//mus//"</fc> Wenn Kl auch si-be-molle ("sa") schreibt, stellt sich doch die Frage, ob nicht wegen des Kontextes mit "do" und "mi" ("//se//-di-//mus//") doch ein 'si-be-durum' ("si") angebracht ist.\\
+<fc #4682b4>"//tu//-i"</fc> Kl "do", das "si" ist offensichtlich.
   An den Flüssen von Babylon / da saßen wir und weinten,
@@ Zeile 30: / Zeile 31: @@
   as we thought of you, Zion.
+With its three verses, the OF Super flumina is one of the longest in the repertoire. The use of the Repetendae is very complex. The rather short OF “Super flumina” is followed by the verses\\
+V1. “In salicibus,” which are particularly long.\\
+V2. “Si oblitus” in Bv35 and Kl ends with “...non meminero.” The other manuscripts (L, Ch, A, Y, etc.) continue the verse with “Qui dixerunt Super flumina babylonis” (different melody than in the OF). Bv34, Bv39, and Ang separate the Repetenda from the OF “Dum recordaremur” and “Et flevimus.” In E, “Qui dixerunt - Super flumina babylonis” is not part of V2. It is used as an isolated repetition.\\
+V3. “Memento” rather short\\
-{%syn:analyse:grad:0587%}
+{{ :grad:gph_0587_tabelle.png?600 |}}
+The OF begins in mode 1 (OF+V1). V2+V3, however, belong to the 8th mode, but to the tenor sa (B flat). We notate without b, to the tenor do, appropriately attached by custos.
+B33 and Zt do not notate any verses, as usual. A+Y bring two prosulae to verses 2 and 3.
+<fc #4682b4>“sedi-//mus//”</fc> Even though Kl also writes si-flat (“sa”), the question arises as to whether, given the context with “do” and ‘mi’ (“//se//-di-//mus//”), a ‘si-flat’ (“si”) would not be more appropriate.\\
+<fc #4682b4>“//tu//-i”</fc> Kl “do,” the “si” is obvious.
 -------
+{%syn:analyse:grad:0587%}