Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
2008/2/4, Graham Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Interesting! I must admit that I found nothing objectionable with the whiches that Kurt suggested replacing with that... actually, in a few cases, I thought that which sounded better. I often use which, because I like it much more than that; however, I must do horrible sentences without knowing it, since I'm French, and have never learned English in any other way than TV-shows and mailinglists :) ...*Which* is why I apologize for the point *that* Kurt raised :) I am probably the one to blame for odd formulations in snippets descriptions etc. Cheers, Valentin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:23:08 -0500 Palmer, Ralph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- My copy of The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers, Fourth Edition, (1996), under Problems with that, which, and who? says, Understand that both essential (restrictive) and nonessential (nonrestrictive) clauses may begin with which. A clause introduced by that will almost always be essential. No commas are used around such clauses. . . . Context and punctuation, however, determine whether a which clause is essential or nonessential. If the clause is essential, no commas separate it from the rest of the sentence; if nonessential, commas enclose the clause. (Emphasis in the original.) Interesting! I must admit that I found nothing objectionable with the whiches that Kurt suggested replacing with that... actually, in a few cases, I thought that which sounded better. But I've always avoided learning anything about grammar[1], so I didn't mind replacing them. [1] As a native English speaker, I don't see the point -- I can speak and write perfectly well without knowing any formal rules of grammar. Actually, when I started learning Japanese, I was confused when the lesson was talking about subject and object, and had to look it up. For anybody who thinks that knowledge of formal grammar is necessary to be a good writer, I have a challenge: sit down and write the complete rule for pluralization in English. At a minimum, what is the general rule which tells you how to pluralize foot and boot? I bet that there's less than a hundred people on the planet who could formalize anything approaching a complete rule for English pluralization... yet millions of people can do it perfectly, recognize and correct mistakes, etc. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
Greetings - Kurt wrote: -- Generally -- which and that have specific uses that we aren't observing very well. That introduces a restrictive subclause and should not be preceded by a comma. Removing this clause changes the meaning of the sentence, usually by making it more general. On the other hand, which introduces an informative (but non-restrictive) subclause and should be preceded by a comma. I replaced which with that below (and in my preceding email) where the following clause was restrictive and couldn't be removed without generalizing the meaning of the sentence. -- My copy of The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers, Fourth Edition, (1996), under Problems with that, which, and who? says, Understand that both essential (restrictive) and nonessential (nonrestrictive) clauses may begin with which. A clause introduced by that will almost always be essential. No commas are used around such clauses. . . . Context and punctuation, however, determine whether a which clause is essential or nonessential. If the clause is essential, no commas separate it from the rest of the sentence; if nonessential, commas enclose the clause. (Emphasis in the original.) That being said, I am not opposed to trying to maintain consistency. Ralph + Ralph Palmer, CEM Energy/Administrative Coordinator Keene State College Keene, NH 03435-2502 Phone: 603-358-2230 Cell: 603-209-2903 Fax: 603-358-2456 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
Hi Graham, I bet that there's less than a hundred people You mean I bet there are fewer than... ;-) In all seriousness, while it may be true that knowledge of formal grammar is [not] necessary to be a good writer, it is undeniable that better grammarians make better writers, all other things being equal. That is to say, content presented with bad grammar is less easy/ interesting/enjoyable to read than the same content written correctly -- and the content is therefore less effective at accomplishing its main purpose, which is communication. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Graham, I bet that there's less than a hundred people You mean I bet there are fewer than... ;-) In all seriousness, while it may be true that knowledge of formal grammar is [not] necessary to be a good writer, it is undeniable that better grammarians make better writers, all other things being equal. That is to say, content presented with bad grammar is less easy/ interesting/enjoyable to read than the same content written correctly -- and the content is therefore less effective at accomplishing its main purpose, which is communication. Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user Might not the same arguments be applied to the benefits of knowing Lilypond's grammar? Ah, Cheers! Stan ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:58:35 - Trevor Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Graham Percival wrote 04 February 2008 16:27 On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:42:55 -0600 Stan Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: I bet that there's less than a hundred people You mean I bet there are fewer than... ;-) *hmph* In modern Canadian, an apostrophe followed by an `s' is appropriate for singular or plural use. :) I think Kieren also meant the distinction between less and fewer :) Whoops. Guilty as charged. Although I don't think that I'd ever write ... there are less than I think it's my use of the colloquial 's that messed me up here. Well it certainly is not clear, but that is not due to the choice of that or which. Accidentals are certainly printed in other places than this suggests. Perhaps it means, Accidentals are printed on tied notes only when the note to which they are tied is on the previous system. Good point! (although I think a simple word swap suffices to clarify this -- Accidentals on tied notes are only printed at the beginning of a new system: ) You see, this is why I keep on asking everybody to read the same section over and over again... we keep on finding things like this. Incidently, the MS Grammar checker -always- annoyingly recommends that for all restrictive clauses. That seems an excellent reason to use which whenever possible :) :) Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
Hi Trevor (et al.), I think Kieren also meant the distinction between less and fewer :) Indeed! =) Perhaps it means, Accidentals are printed on tied notes only when the note to which they are tied is on the previous system. Good point. Incidently, the MS Grammar checker -always- annoyingly recommends that for all restrictive clauses. That seems an excellent reason to use which whenever possible :) =) Best, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:42:55 -0600 Stan Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: I bet that there's less than a hundred people You mean I bet there are fewer than... ;-) *hmph* In modern Canadian, an apostrophe followed by an `s' is appropriate for singular or plural use. :) That is to say, content presented with bad grammar is less easy/ interesting/enjoyable to read than the same content written correctly -- and the content is therefore less effective at accomplishing its main purpose, which is communication. Look, are we talking horrible monstrocity, such that are, commonly wrote, by non-English native speaker, or a minor word choice? I mean, does this sentence _actually_ bother anybody? Or make it unclear? Accidentals are only printed on tied notes which begin a new system: I personally think that which makes the sentence flow better -- that's why I changed it from the that which was originally put there by Valentin (IIRC). When Kurt complained, I changed it back to that, but I still think which there's nothing wrong with which in that sentence. [sic :P ] Might not the same arguments be applied to the benefits of knowing Lilypond's grammar? Sure! I am willing to go on record in stating that a native LilyPond writer, who has been reading and creating lilypond code every day for over twenty years, will have no need to know the formal rules of LilyPond grammar. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
Graham Percival wrote 04 February 2008 16:27 On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:42:55 -0600 Stan Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:19 AM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: I bet that there's less than a hundred people You mean I bet there are fewer than... ;-) *hmph* In modern Canadian, an apostrophe followed by an `s' is appropriate for singular or plural use. :) I think Kieren also meant the distinction between less and fewer :) I mean, does this sentence _actually_ bother anybody? Or make it unclear? Accidentals are only printed on tied notes which begin a new system: Well it certainly is not clear, but that is not due to the choice of that or which. Accidentals are certainly printed in other places than this suggests. Perhaps it means, Accidentals are printed on tied notes only when the note to which they are tied is on the previous system. I personally think that which makes the sentence flow better -- that's why I changed it from the that which was originally put there by Valentin (IIRC). When Kurt complained, I changed it back to that, but I still think which there's nothing wrong with which in that sentence. [sic :P ] I agree. which is perfectly correct here, and like you, I prefer it. You have a choice for restrictive clauses. You may base your choice on style, on previous words in the sentence, or simply your feeling for what sounds best. Incidently, the MS Grammar checker -always- annoyingly recommends that for all restrictive clauses. That seems an excellent reason to use which whenever possible :) Trevor D ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
Hi Stan, Might not the same arguments be applied to the benefits of knowing Lilypond's grammar? I agree: 1. By using poor Lilypond grammar, I can write an .ly file which compiles and outputs a valid score of Beethoven 9, but is essentially unreadable (as an input file) by any human, including well-trained Lily users. 2. I could also use good Lilypond grammar, and produce an .ly file *also* compiles and outputs a valid score of Beethoven 9 -- visually indistinguishable from the other version -- and yet is (much more easily) readable than the previous .ly file, and thus is more effective at communicating Lilypond-ness. I think we should all be striving for #2. =) Best regards, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
Hi Graham, I mean, does this sentence _actually_ bother anybody? Or make it unclear? No... but there *are* things in NR 1.1 Pitches which *could* be clearer. I'm teaching every week day, and have rehearsals every evening this week, but am hoping to get my NR 1.1 comments in soon. I am willing to go on record in stating that a native LilyPond writer, who has been reading and creating lilypond code every day for over twenty years, will have no need to know the formal rules of LilyPond grammar. Fair enough... but their code could easily be useless for public use (e.g., Mutopia), and that's not what we should be striving for (IMO). Cheers, Kieren. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
Accidentals are only printed on tied notes which begin a new system: Each to his/her own I guess. In this case that is correct and which is incorrect. To me, which sounds strange in this context. It implies to me that tied notes begin a new system *which* is, of course, untrue. :) What people think of as strange or normal depends on their common usage in spoken language I find. That's why you still see people writing there instead of they're and where instead of we're. Don't even get me started on its :D Regards, Ralph - All new Yahoo! Mail - - Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane.___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26 [OT]
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:34:43 -0500 (EST) Ralph Little [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Accidentals are only printed on tied notes which begin a new system: Each to his/her own I guess. In this case that is correct and which is incorrect. To me, which sounds strange in this context. It implies to me that tied notes begin a new system *which* is, of course, untrue. :) I think that's a different meaning of which. Hmm... if we had a comma before the which, I'd buy into your reading. I think we're getting into silly territory here. (or rather, I think we wandered into silly territory about 8 emails ago :) What people think of as strange or normal depends on their common usage in spoken language I find. That's why you still see people writing there instead of they're and where instead of we're. Don't even get me started on its :D No, those are clearly just idiots. Nobody whose [sic] intelligent can possibly disagree over those things. :) Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:43:19 -0800 Kurt Kroon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Page 9, antepenultimate paragraph (missed this in my first go-round) -- For example, when entering music that [not which] begins on a notated E (concert D) [moved this section up] for a B-flat trumpet, one could write ... Disagree; the most important part of this situation is the B-flat trumpet. I changed the that/which, though. Same page, first sentence of the second paragraph in Selected snippets -- delete the comma after octavation: or the octavation does not in ... Ditto, third sentence -- change litotes to a positive statement (unless the litotes is incorrect and the sentence should be negative): The clefOctavation value would normally be set to 7, -7, 15 or -15, but other values are valid. Page 13 -- end of the previous line is [not in] not required ... Not my department. If you look at the Snippets - Pitches page, you'll see all these things collected together, along with the file names. Could you collect all these language corrections in the snippets, along with the filenames, to Valentin? Page 22, Selected snippets -- ... every pitch in the twelve-tone [removed extra space, changed note to tone] scale ... for V. Cheers, - Graham ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Part 2 of 2 -- Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches 2008-01-26
On 2/2/08 5:26 PM, Kurt Kroon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/26/08 9:28 PM, Graham Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Final call for comments on NR 1.1 Pitches. Please note that this is our demonstration chapter, which will form the guidelines for the rest of the NR. So if there's anything that you don't like about the general layout and policies of this section, please speak up now, before the entire NR is changed to match. Read it online, download the pdf, print it out and read on a bus with a red pen in hand... please review it any way that suits you. :) I'll wait a week before declaring this section perfect. More observations -- where appropriate, I've indicated my changes in [square brackets]: Generally -- which and that have specific uses that we aren't observing very well. That introduces a restrictive subclause and should not be preceded by a comma. Removing this clause changes the meaning of the sentence, usually by making it more general. On the other hand, which introduces an informative (but non-restrictive) subclause and should be preceded by a comma. I replaced which with that below (and in my preceding email) where the following clause was restrictive and couldn't be removed without generalizing the meaning of the sentence. And here's the continued list of my specific observations --- Page 9, antepenultimate paragraph (missed this in my first go-round) -- For example, when entering music that [not which] begins on a notated E (concert D) [moved this section up] for a B-flat trumpet, one could write ... Page 12 -- the list of predefined clefs is not very systematic. I suggest putting them in this order, which is based on putting middle C on the next higher line: Clef name Position of middle C french 2 ledger lines below the staff treble 1 ledger line below the staff soprano bottom staff line mezzosopranosecond staff line altothird staff line tenor fourth staff line baritonefifth staff line (C clef) varbaritone fifth staff line (F clef) bass1 ledger line above the staff subbass 2 ledger lines above the staff percussion N/A tab N/A The preceding example could be rewritten to show this visually: \clef french c2 c \clef treble c2 c \clef soprano c2 c \clef mezzosoprano c2 c \clef alto c2 c \clef tenor c2 c \clef baritone c2 c \clef varbaritone c2 c \clef bass c2 c \clef subbass c2 c Same page, first sentence of the second paragraph in Selected snippets -- delete the comma after octavation: or the octavation does not in ... Ditto, third sentence -- change litotes to a positive statement (unless the litotes is incorrect and the sentence should be negative): The clefOctavation value would normally be set to 7, -7, 15 or -15, but other values are valid. Page 13 -- end of the previous line is [not in] not required ... Page 14 -- Unlike the clefs, the order of the modes is systematic, but based on a descending scale. If you accept my suggestion of clefs above, please consider ordering the modes in ascending sequence as well, namely: Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian, Locrian. Page 16 -- last line so an instrument that [not which] produces a real sound ... Page 18, under Automatic accidentals -- LilyPond provides a function to specify which [delete such because it's awkward] accidental style Same page, same section, next paragraph -- Optionally, the function can take a second argument that [not which] determines in which ... Page 20, second section of modern section -- It prints the same accidentals as default, with two exceptions that [not which] serve to ... Page 22, Selected snippets -- ... every pitch in the twelve-tone [removed extra space, changed note to tone] scale ... Page 23, Ambitus, second sentence in second paragraph -- ... two note heads that represent the lowest and highest [less awkward than minimum and maximum] pitches. Okey dokey, that's enough for now. Kurt ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
