User talk:Tsuka

Fool?
"Et expcto", what is your source for a different wording, please? I sang it several times, and never an "s", in different editions. Also, quite generally, when you are reverted, you don't put it back, but go discuss on the article talk page. I will restore the former stable state, and you discuss, please. Doing the same thing a third time is called edit warring. - --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, I did provide a source in the edit, one hastily found I confess, but here is another:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exspecto


 * Yes, "expecto" is an alternate form, but in most recordings I have come across it is rendered "exspecto". However, this was not the main cause of my edit: The article had it "EX expecto", and that is completely wrong no matter how you cut it - and you reverted to it. Tsuka (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You are right about "Et" not "Ex", and I confess that I only looked at the other, because it was what you mentioned in the edit summary. Wiktionary is not considered reliable, nor liner notes of recordings. What did Bach write? What do critical editions have? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Why is Wiktionary not reliable when it presents sources? More reliable than a Google war, surely, which yielded 41,000 hits for "exspecto" and 20,000 hits for "expecto". No matter, I will try to find what the original score says, if for no other reason but to satisfy my curiosity. I do not believe original spelling should dictate how we spell things on Wikipedia anyway, or we would have to spell Händel's "His yoke is easy, his burden is light" as how he originally did, with "burthen" instead of "burden". And if you have been a choir singer for as long as I have (and I suspect you have), you know that spellings may differ from one edition to the next, even in Latin. Scores cannot seem to agree on how to spell "coeli", for example - or is it "caeli"? I haven't sung the B minor mass myself, but I do have the score somewhere, if only a Dover edition. Be that as it may, I did not edit the spelling of "expecto" this last time, but rest assured, "exspecto" is not incorrect even if you can't recall having read it that way before. Until I was made aware of it a couple years back, neither could I - even though I had read it numerous times. I had always read it as "expecto", even though it said "exspecto" all along.Tsuka (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wictionary - like Wikipedia - can be edited by anybody, so both are not reliable. Thank you for searching. I replied on the Mass page, let's keep it one place. - Nice to meet you! I'm just a bit allergic to "fool" in edit summaries ;) - and then don't see the obvious, such as that wrong x. You may be interested in Mass in B minor structure, the thing I'm most proud of. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)