Talk:Incipit

Automatic incipit document titling in word processors
Here's the old version of the last ¶:

''It may be said, furthermore, that the incipit has seen a wide-ranging revival in recent years. On millions of personal computers used in offices and home environments, the "save" dialogue box of certain advanced word processors proposes the document's first few words as its default name. If a user does not rename the document but accepts the suggestion, he or she will in a sense be unwittingly saving the document under its incipit. If a computer user makes a habit of accepting these names, a directory-listing of his computer can produce a list just as cryptic as a Sumerian library catalogue.''

User:Moriori shortened the opening sentence to read "The incipit has seen a wide-ranging revivial in recent years." I reverted to the longer version, giving this comment:

(Please explain, Moriori! I think the words you deleted 1) linked the ¶ to its predecessor; and 2) made it clear that (as I believe is the case) calling them "incipits" is speculation, not standard practice) [N.B. slightly edited for improved clarity.]

Moriori shortened it again, giving the reasoning:

(We do not need to say "It may be said, furthermore, that.....". Of course it may be. We are are actually saying it. No need for verbosity>)

I don't feel that this really addresses the arguments I made. (Or perhaps Moriori didn't see my arguments, since they were down in the edit history.) Anyway, since edit comment boxes don't give much room for discussion, I thought I would bring it here to the talk page. Thanks. Doops 03:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello Doops. No, I did not see your first comments, but no matter. 1) My amendment did not change the flow-on context of the article.  2) It is verbosity to state something and prefix it with (example) "we can say".  3) If Wikipedia is to speculate something then it needs to be stated it is speculation.  Thanks. Moriori 03:31, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC) PS. If it is not speculation, and it is not known that it is true, then the well worn Wikipedia phrase "Some say that....." seems to work. Cheers ):- Moriori


 * Well, I think the "furthermore" was important, so I put it back in. As far as the "it may be said" is concerned, I would protest that it's not just treading water &mdash; those are "wiggle words": we aren't (or at least I am not) quite brave enough to say it ourselves, but we'll mention that it COULD be said. (And we can't write "some people say" since so far as I know this is an incredibly obscure issue which only three people in the world care about.) But since it sounds like mere verbosity to you, I've tried to find a compromise wording. Doops 16:05, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I too think that "furthermore" is a bit verbose, but it sure is a lot less verbose than the 17h and 18th century titles and sub titles I made reference to in the article. They could run on for paragraphs! Besides, I have been "guilty" more than once of slipping in an excessive "furthermore" here and there in my writings, without realising how it slowed down my readers so I do not think I should go around casting stones. These issues are not quite as obscure as you might think. I have added three more references concerning file naming and virtual desk organization but I could have added hundreds more. It would have taken a bit too much time to pick them however. I have put back the explicit statement concerning the clay tablet example and the ending which refers to it because this is an historical article, in addition to being an article that deals with literary matters and human computer interaction. There is a rare 5,000 year historical continuity around the incipit as a tool for organizing information, and it is one of the reasons it is worth an article. AlainV 19:17, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Once more unto the breach, dear friends... as they say somewhere in Shakespeare. It looks rather OK to me now, but I can't resist two comments: One is that in writing reports and many other kinds of texts there is a good tradition of writing a title page, with a nice big, appropriate title right in the middle and, all too often, something like the date or the name of institution right above, which ruins the incipit-like function of word processors. The paragraph on these electronic incipits does not cover this, and worse, it seems to deny them by stressing other precise cases. The other comment, about the same paragraph, is that to "dive in" is a colloquial expression which will not always be well understood in this context. I did not catch it at all the first time around, yet I have done my BA and my master's in an English language university. Because of this Encyclopedias usually avoid colloquial expressions. Could a better substitute be found? AlainV 06:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Incipits as titles of ecclesiastical documents?
It seems that "incipit" would be the term for the way papal and conciliar documents are usually titled with their first two or three words. --Jim Henry | Talk 17:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

cheesecake
How did the cheesecake phrase escape us for so long? Bibliomaniac15 04:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. very funny. MarkBuckles 05:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Any thoughts? I've heard everything from s to k to ch for the first consonant. There's also no wiktionary entry yet. MarkBuckles 05:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no standardised pronounciation for Latin. A restituta reading would use for it; Church Latin uses .  would be very unusual, unless one were fully anglicising the word. Taragüí @ 18:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But that's not impossible! And indeed, I understand that standard Latin pronunciation in Renaissance England featured "passem" for pacem. All three are possible, I don't doubt. (I use 'k', of course.) Doops | talk 03:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The traditional English pronunciation of Latin is standard for the pronunciation of Latin in English. /ˈɪnsɪpɪt/ is the standard pronunciation, per the OED.Deonyi (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also consider the pronunciation of 'explicit'.Deonyi (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyedit/revision
I have revised and reorganized this article, removing a bit of what seemed like original research. The section on word processors, though referenced in the reference section, would really benefit from inline citations, as would the entire article. Comments welcome. MarkBuckles 01:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Musical incipits
Incipit is also used in music to refer to an opening sequence of notes. For example, that usage appears in the Gregorian chant article, which links here. I'm going to add a small section to this article about that unless anyone has an objection. MrRK 20:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Charles Burney in his Present State of Music in Germany (Volume II - Leipzig) reports that Breitkopf claims to have been the first music publisher to provide incipits in his catalogues. Anyone? 2403:5807:1A18:0:8C41:C015:4A84:F431 (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

create Wiktionary entry: incipitory
The first part of something.

or about the first section of something; of a text, a musical piece, a film, etc.

other sources
I don't understand what the "other sources" section is for. Why is there suddenly a bunch of links about desks and file organization? There's one sentence about computer science, is it supposed to link to that somehow? If so, it needs more justification, I think. Right now, stumbling across this as a reader it seems out of place and unsupported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:E50:1016:BDFB:1CF5:FDA1:3B9D (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)