Re: Clarification of Gregorian Chant terminology

[Frauke Jurgensen]

I think the trouble is a mixing of terminology:

"ligatures" is being used as a lilypond term to cover
multi-note-symbols of various types of early notation, regardless of
terms used in palaeography for that type of notation. It seems logical
to use this one term for things that behave similarly...but perhaps it
needs to be clarified that this is a lilypondian generalisation?

"Gregorian" is being used as a lay-man's label specifically for square
notation, and it seems to me that if we're going to get specific about
compound neumes vs. ligatures, we also need to be specific about the
kind of notation...

Not sure if that makes any kind of sense...

regards,
Frauke

On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Marek Klein <address@hidden> wrote:
> 2010/12/30 Francisco Vila <address@hidden>
>>
>> 2010/12/30 Frauke Jurgensen <address@hidden>:
>> > Why not call it
>> >
>> > "Ligatures in square notation" or "Square Notation Ligatures"? That
>> > would remove both the neume and the also-problematic "Gregorian".
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Frauke
>>
>> "Gregorian neumes" would be a more natural name for that notation
>> element.  Sorry if I try to restore the two potentially problematic
>> words.
>
> There are other kinds of neumes used to notate gregorian (and other) chant.
>
> I havn't seen the term ligature used with square notation, except for
> lilypond. More commonly used term (as oposit to single-note neumes) is
> compound neumes.
>
> --
> Marek Klein,
> http://gregoriana.sk
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>