Disputatio:Singularis (musica)

De nomine Vilborgiano

This phonodiscus singularis melodiae apparently = 'a one-tune record', but almost all single vinyl records have two sides, each with one tune, so they're really "two-tune records," and if memory serves, one side may contain music that consists of two tunes, and that raises the total to three. Wikipedia confirms my memory: "Despite being referred to as a single, singles can include up to as many as three tracks on them." So Vilborg's phrase, which reads more like a definition than a term, seems at least slightly off the mark. Maybe a one-word noun, like solum or unicum (scil. carmen), would be apter? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:24, 4 Martii 2016 (UTC)

If Vilborg offers the single word "singularis", you're right about the illogicality of the term but it corresponds precisely with the English and French, so it seems quixotic to reject it. OK, then, if we accept that, since we don't crowd initial sentences with synonyms, we have no justification for making a second lemma out of the descriptive phrase; so we could relegate it to a footnote or even (if we believe it's just a definition) delete it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:42, 4 Martii 2016 (UTC)

I only corrected the misinformation initially given and left the article as it is. Instead of "singularis", Vilborg has only "phonodiscus singuaris melodiae" which doesn't work as a lemma; rather, it looks like being a (poor) definition. Neander (disputatio) 20:34, 4 Martii 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Then Iacobus is right and we should indeed try to find a solution. "Unicum" is attractive. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:56, 4 Martii 2016 (UTC)