User talk:Dbachmann/Archive 43

You may look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kameshwar_Singh and his predecessors who were officialy Zamindars (landlords) and never real Kings, they were never admitted into the Chamber of Princes (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_of_Princes). I belong to that region and I do not want to quarrel with that family which was the biggest landlord of India and Kshatra Singh (Thakur) had boughgt the title Maharaja in the beginning of 19th century but this family never had any State or boundary. Vinay Jha

Way back in 2015, with this edit to R rotunda, you wrote:

The abbreviation etc. was typeset using the Tironian et ⟨⁊⟩, as ⟨⁊c.⟩ in early incunables.

Later, when typesets no longer contained a sort for the Tironian et, it became common practice to use the r rotunda glyph instead, setting ⟨ꝛc.⟩ for etc.

which is true. But you cited

• Updike, Daniel Berkeley (1922). Printing types, their history, forms and use, a study in survivals by Daniel Berkeley Updike. Vol. I. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. p. 109.

but there is nothing on the page cited that even mentions it. In fact the word "rotunda" does not appear anywhere in this volume nor is it in volume 2 (https://archive.org/details/printingtypesth00updigoog/page/n8/mode/2up ).

Do you have a different printing to the one on archive.org? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]