Hi all,
Which format of "circa" should I use? I see all of these variations out there. My personal preference is A. I believe the full stop should not be used when the abbreviation of circa ends with the letter "a" (being the final letter of circa), but I stand to be corrected...!
As for abbreviation full stops, these are now much less used in the UK than in the US (there are some other respects in which US English is now more old fashioned or traditional that ‘British English’ [whatever that tautology is supposed to mean - in Scotland it is not the same as in England &c], but that is a discussion for elsewhere).
Now and then I get jobs where the language in use is English. David's comment, instructive as it is, makes the issue quite complicated. Isn't there any "one way" to write this circa abbreviation for us non-native English speakers, to get away with?
Anders Hedelin wrote: ↑30 May 2023, 19:36
… … … Isn't there any "one way" to write this circa abbreviation… … ?
Probably not any one way, but I suggest Hector's D version as the one least likely to excite comment. As far as I can find, Gould has nothing to say on the subject.
Another (perhaps whimsical) thought: the sign ≈ means approximately equal to when used by mathematicians. Has anyone ever seen ≈ 120 in a musical score?
I have written ≤ 152 in a score, ie less than or equal to 152, intending it to imply that the performer should play as near to 152 as is practical.
For most (but not all) purposes metronome markings are approximations anyway…
Last edited by David Ward on 30 May 2023, 21:03, edited 1 time in total.
I believe that C would be the most "correct*" but any of the above should get the message across without question.
*Abbreviations where the ending letter of the abbreviated form matches the unabbreviated term do not require a period (full stop), and foreign words should be italicized.
David Ward wrote: ↑30 May 2023, 20:45
Another (perhaps whimsical) thought: the sign ≈ means approximately equal to when used by mathematicians. Has anyone ever seen ≈ 120 in a musical score?
I have written ≤ 152 in a score, ie less than or equal to 152, intending it to imply that the performer should play as near to 152 as is practical.
Actually I've seen the ≈ in use occasionally. It would be quite understandable to most people, I think.
The ≤ seems to me more for the mathematically educated, even if it's clear to me because I happen to remember it from my school days.
John Ruggero wrote: ↑31 May 2023, 02:53
No matter what you write, the player(s) will play it at "about" 120. So you could leave off the circa and be done with it.
one of my works was performed last summer and autumn, three times by two different orchestras.
and honestly, no two performances were at the same speed, and this is including the two performances with the same orchestra under the same conductor.
my tempo marking was a simple, clear = tempo marking. no circa.
So I agree, the circa is really not necessary as musicians will already play the music at "around" that tempo.
Or the conductor/performer will play it at whatever tempo they like, regardless of the instruction.
I often tell a story about a 'well-known composer', who came into a Cathedral, where he could hear one of his pieces being played on the organ.
He found the Organ Scholar at the console, and said "Lovely playing; but why are you doing it at that speed?"
The Scholar replied: "That's the metronome mark in the score."
"Oh, I shouldn't pay any attention to that...."
= c. 120
