Disputatio:Rhythmus
Pagina huic coniuncta e conversione paginae “Rhythm” sitūs en.wikipedia.org orta est.
Auctoribus illius paginae hic enumeratis gratias agimus.
Aquesta pàgina es basa en una traducció de „Rhythm“ a en.wikipedia.org. Podeu trobar la llista d'editors aquí.
Die angegliederte Seite basiert ursprünglich auf einer Übersetzung von „Rhythm“ aus en.wikipedia.org. Eine Liste der Autoren ist hier verfügbar.
The attached page originated as a translation from the page “Rhythm” on the site en.wikipedia.org.
We are grateful to the authors of that page as listed here.
We are grateful to the authors of that page as listed here.
La apuda paĝo origine baziĝas sur traduko de “Rhythm” el en.wikipedia.org. Listo de la ĝentilaj artikolverkintoj haveblas ĉi tie.
Numerus[fontem recensere]
Vocabulum classicum pro rhythmo in musica poëticaque numerus videtur. E.g. apud Lewis et Short s.v. "rhythmos" legimus "Cicero constantly has numerus instead of this word, which he writes only as Greek, Or. 20, 67; 51, 170)". Numerus certe alias significationes habet, quare incertus sum. Censeo aut paginam movendam, aut partem antiquum describentem usum scribendam esse. Alii quid dicunt? Lesgles (disputatio) 19:21, 17 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
- With regard to certain technical senses, Lewis & Short haven't a clue. Under definition II.E. of numerus, they hopelessly muddle four (!) distinct & mutually exclusive senses: "Musical measure, time, rhythm, harmony" (or as we'd call them nowadays, meter, tempo, rhythm, harmony). If numerus truly means all these things, it's so vague as to have no definitional utility whatsoever. The present disposition of Vicipaedia's articles on technical musical matters (including the names of instruments) is unsatisfactory, perhaps in part because so much novelty has occurred in (European) music since the middle ages and we're stuck with a tiny basic vocabulary to describe it. However, reserving numerus for 'rhythm', metrum for 'meter', and tempus for 'tempo' might work until the Latin technical vocabulary of music from the 15th & 16th centuries can be more fully explored. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:15, 17 Iunii 2015 (UTC)