> I agree with almost everything you write except that I would like to call > instruments first and foremost by their proper names (especially if it comes > to non western european instruments), that I would not like to call guitars > lutes
nor should I. Lute instruments would be the traditional name. > [and therefore have to admit that I am not able to decide upon where the > dividing line runs between the different six-string plucked things used side > by side in the nineteenth and early twentieth century] nomen proprium definitur per genus proximum + accidentia specifica: chordophones -> plucked chordophones -> plucked chordophones with necks -> plucked chordophones with necks and bowl-like bodies. > and that I think that the Sachs system does not apply universally except when > one states that western (european) views have needs to be adopted all over > the world. Perhaps, Japanese musicologists will share the European traditional way of definining families of musical instruments. Perhaps they won't. Does that mean it's wrong in any kind of way? Would you suggest other ways than by use or construction? All the best, Mathias -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
