Talk:Maria Anna Mozart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Pronunciation

Questions:

  1. On which syllable was Nannerl stressed, originally? Was it NANNerl, or nannERL?
  2. How do we know? Is there a published source that gives a ruling on this?

– Noetica 03:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a published ruling on this, but every Austrian will confirm that a diminutive ending with "-erl" is a) always neuter and b) always stressed on the first syllable.--Suessmayr (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The name is prouncounced on the frist syllable also "NANNerl". I hope, I can help you.

--AndreaMimi (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguity

The sentence "Although her brother rebelled from their father, to a degree, she remained primarily under his direction." is unfortunately ambiguous in that 'his' direction might be either that of the father or brother. It becomes clear contextually from the following sentences that 'he' is in fact the father, nonetheless stylistically this sentence could be improved upon by revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.173.137 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Removed link

When I tried to add the turkish lang ext. it said there was spam protection for the infonet.com.br link, so I removed it. Nerval 17:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Quarrel over Leopold's will"

There never was a quarrel between Mozart and his sister, because Leopold Mozart left no will. Solomon is unaware of this basic fact, just as he is unaware of the German literature pertaining to the division and auction of Leopold's estate. Because he has never seen the primary sources in the Berchtold zu Sonnenburg family archive in Brno, Solomon's speculations about a "quarrel" are entirely irrelevant.--Suessmayr (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

<Opus33 interpolated:>
Hello, Suessmayr, please see my reply to 141.203.250.65 below. Opus33 (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. Solomon bases his unproven speculations on Walther Senn's article from 1962 and is obviously completely unaware of Angermüller's much later research based on the primary sources. And to make matters even worse, Solomon relates the florin of 1778 to the florin from 1803 and 1829 (mixing up Conventionsmünze with Vienneses Currency). It's the usual comedy of errors.--141.203.250.65 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If it only were this, but Solomon also still thinks that the Salzburger Lump is Mozart himself (Solomon, Mozart, p.411), while it has been known since 1997 that the scoundrel story actually refers to Mozart's friend Franz Jacob Freystaedtler.--193.170.112.226 (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, 141.203.250.65, I would like to consult Senn (1962) and "Angermüller's much later research" but to do so it would help to have the normal sort of bibliographic information so I can search for them. (You probably already know this, but in the case of a journal this would be: both first and last name of author, journal title, year, volume, and page numbers; and in the case of an article in an edited volume: title, editor's name, publisher, place, and copyright date.) If you could specify these for the works by Angermüller and Senn I would appreciate it very much. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It is relatively easy to get this information on the website of the Bibliotheca Mozartiana at the "Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum" [1], a simple procedure Maynard Solomon is obviously incapable of. For up-to-date research see Rudolph Angermüller, "Leopold Mozarts Verlassenschaft", in: Mitteilungen der ISM 41 (1993), vol. 3-4, (Salzburg, November 1993), pp. 1-32. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suessmayr (talk • contribs) 20:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Suessmayr. I'll give this a try. Opus33 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)