[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: would 'gn' for G-natural be useful in \language "english" ?
From: |
Brian Barker |
Subject: |
Re: would 'gn' for G-natural be useful in \language "english" ? |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Aug 2014 17:36:54 +0100 |
At 08:38 29/08/2014 -0700, Keith OHara wrote:
In English the names use two parts,
noun-adjective, which allows the construction
"C-natural". German has single words (ces c cis)
for the pitches, and these are distinct from the
names for the alterations (Be, AuflösungZeichen, Kreuz).
Interesting: thank you. I hadn't appreciated
that. Rather as some arithmeticians call -3
"negative three" and not "minus three", so as to
distinguish negation from subtraction - the result from the process.
The feature-request implicitly assumed, based on
experience, that such errors ["c", when "cs" was
meant but was in the key signature] already happen.
Oh, indeed they will.
Anyone using, for example, ABC notation had
developed the habit of typing 'C' for the pitch
at scale-step C in the key. The distinct naming
was suggested as a way to help us more efficiently correct those errors.
That's where we disagree.
Would the ability to enter 'cn', or a note in
the "Languages" table saying "In English 'cn' is
an alternative to 'c' to denote the pitch
C-natural", actually increase the rate of forgetting the 's' in 'cs' ?
That's what I'm suggesting - that allowing "cn"
would encourage users to think as they would if
writing music by hand or reading out the note names.
Brian Barker