Re: would 'gn' for G-natural be useful in \language "english" ?

[Knute Snortum]

English speakers (at least the ones in my part of America) will say "cee" or "cee-natural" for the note C.  The latter is to emphasis that you are not speaking of another pitch like C-sharp.  In the key of D, say, some people will say "cee" when they mean "cee-sharp".  "cee-natural" shows you haven't made this mistake.

So it seems natural (!) that LilyPond would include this sort of emphasis.  Writing "cs" (with \language "english" and \key d \major) is confusing to newcomers -- as evidenced by the section in the documentation under Accidentals.  "cn" in LilyPond would be like speaking "cee-natural" -- it would assure the reader that you really mean C-natural.  The compiler would just ignore it.

Knute Snortum

(via Gmail)

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Brian Barker <address@hidden> wrote:

At 23:41 28/08/2014 -0700, Keith OHara wrote:

The suggestion quoted below from the bug-lilypond list
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2014-08/msg00037.html>
makes sense to me, as an addition to the \language "english"  note-names.

It would not fit in German-style pitch-names, where 'cis' and 'ces' get completely distinct names from 'c'.

Sorry, but I don't see the distinction you are trying to make between German and English. Surely C, C-sharp, and C-flat (and for that matter -double sharp and -double flat) have separate names in any language, including German, English, German Lilypond, and English Lilypond?

Would anyone else like to see 'fn' as a second way to express F-natural in English (in addition to the existing 'f') ?

No: please not.

There are surely two ways of indicating pitches? One is the method used in musical notation itself, where a note on the C line or space without any accidental represents any one of C, C-sharp, or C-flat, depending on the key signature. The other is that used in Lilypond input, where "c" always represents C-natural, irrespective of the key signature in force. Similarly "cis" or "cs" and so on are interpreted literally, without reference to the key signature.

The danger in allowing "cn" would not be to the operation of Lilypond but to the mind of the user! As soon as you allow the user to input "cn", s/he will easily be distracted into thinking in terms of the first method above and will easily omit the appropriate necessary suffixes when a modified pitch is required but which is already present in the key signature. After entering "cn" in, say, D major, one would readily fall into the trap of using "c" in the next bar where "cis" (or "cs") was actually meant and required.

David Winfrey writes:

A new accidental for entering natural notes would be useful. [...]

The original suggester has fallen into this very trap by mentioning an accidental: that's musical thinking, not Lilypond thinking. Accidentals in the musical output appear automatically; no concept of "accidental" is necessary in the Lilypond method of entering pitches.

You could argue that Lilypond input should work like music does (for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not doing that), but that's a completely different suggestion.

Brian Barker 

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user