Attacca

[John Ruggero]

Thank you, arnepe. I think I understand... So the eszett automatically makes the previous "a" a long "aa", so the "aa" is therefore written as a single "a", and since "ss" doesn't do that, it would require the double "aa" when the "ss" is used to replace the eszett (as when written as capital letters, although I read that there is now an accepted capital eszett.)

If I understood that correctly, why then does the first edition have "Zeitmasse." "Time-mass", rather than "time-measure". Was the custom or spelling of the words "masse" and "maße" different in the early 19th century?

[Anders Hedelin]

I get the impression that the spelling in German, like in many other languages, wasn't quite standardized in the period in question. I'm just an amateur here, but my guess would be that national spelling reforms were more typical of united, more homogeneous nations such as Germany was not at the time. So that in the German language these nationally decreed reforms may have come later?

As I said, I'm only guessing. It would be interesting to know more about it though.

OT, if anything!

[John Ruggero]

That's pretty much what I was guessing, Anders. In any case, the question for the editor becomes whether one spells it with the current correct spelling or the older one, and that's why one sees the variation in the different editions. Since I have been using the older spelling, "ligato", for example, I should probably do the same here. So thanks for bringing up the issue, Anders.

[Anders Hedelin]

You are very welcome, John. I think that these old spellings add to an atmosphere of the time, not putting too far a distance between then and now.
I would really be interested in purchasing your edition when ready.

[John Ruggero]

Absolutely.

Thanks, Anders. I will let you know when it is ready.