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

[Keith OHara]

Dear list,
In English, pronouncing the 'natural' in 'C-natural' is required if the note is 
out-of-key.  LilyPond does not consider the key when reading note-input, but 
could easily accept 'cn' as a name for the pitch C-natural.  There was a 
feature request on the bug-list, that LilyPond do so.

Among those responding to the proposal, the Americans were in favor, while the 
British Germans Dutch and Flemish opposed.

The worry is that if LilyPond accepts 'cn' without an error, this might imply 
that 'c' means something different than C-natural, causing someone accustomed 
to ABC or Amadeus input to type 'c' for the leading-tone in the key of D.


The current situation, however, is more difficult for a user accustomed to other 
English-centric note-entry systems.  LilyPond flags each 'cn' with "unrecognized 
string" and produces (usually) no engraved output.

This might remind him that 'c' always means C-natural, and thus by implication 
that he should check his uses of 'c' to see if he ever meant 'cs'.  But he must 
first change (most of) the 'cn's to 'c' to get any output, and then has no 
method better than %{comments%} to note which 'c's really meant C-natural.  I 
tried using 'c!' in these cases, but not all C-naturals need a printed natural.


If instead LilyPond accepts 'cn' as C-natural, and the documentation mentions that "in English 
'cn' is accepted as a synonym for 'c'"  (just after "in Dutch 'aes' is accepted as a 
synonym for 'as'") then LilyPond will give that hypothetical user engraved output.  If he has 
used 'c' when he meant C-sharp, he can see that LilyPond typeset a C-natural, and hear it in the 
MIDI.  This behavior form LilyPond would be at least kinder to the user.

That user would want to remember "give LilyPond pitches, not scale-steps."  
Being able to type the explicit pitch 'cn' (when it is distinct from the scale-step C) 
seems to help in that goal.


I have started using English note-entry with 'cn', etc., for naturals when I would say 
"natural" and I find it helpful.  If anyone else will use it, I'll push for it 
and put it in LilyPond.
__
\language "english"
\new Staff \transpose c c'' {
  \key c\minor \partial 2
  r16 g f g ef g d g |
  c g bn, g c g d g ef g g, g an, g bn, g |
  c g bn, g c g d g ef g d g c g bf, g |
  af, g bf, g c f af, f d f c f bf, f af, f |
  g, f af, f bf, ef g, ef c ef bf, ef af, ef g, ef |
  f, ef g, ef af, d f, d bn, d af, d g, d f, d |
  ef, d f, d g, c ef, c r2 }


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

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

[Ralph Palmer]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Keith OHara  wrote:

> Dear list,
> In English, pronouncing the 'natural' in 'C-natural' is required if the
> note is out-of-key.  LilyPond does not consider the key when reading
> note-input, but could easily accept 'cn' as a name for the pitch
> C-natural.  There was a feature request on the bug-list, that LilyPond do
> so.
>
> Among those responding to the proposal, the Americans were in favor, while
> the British Germans Dutch and Flemish opposed.
>
> I have started using English note-entry with 'cn', etc., for naturals when
> I would say "natural" and I find it helpful.  If anyone else will use it,
> I'll push for it and put it in LilyPond.


Hmm. . . . I am an American and I am opposed, for the reasons given in the
previous discussion(s). My 2 cents.

Thanks to all for your help and input,

Ralph

-- 
Ralph Palmer
Brattleboro, VT
USA
palmer.r.vio...@gmail.com
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

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

[Shane Brandes]

American here, the "cn" is a waste of effort and more liable to muddle
things up.

regards,
Shane

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Ralph Palmer  wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Keith OHara  wrote:
>>
>> Dear list,
>> In English, pronouncing the 'natural' in 'C-natural' is required if the
>> note is out-of-key.  LilyPond does not consider the key when reading
>> note-input, but could easily accept 'cn' as a name for the pitch C-natural.
>> There was a feature request on the bug-list, that LilyPond do so.
>>
>> Among those responding to the proposal, the Americans were in favor, while
>> the British Germans Dutch and Flemish opposed.
>>
>> I have started using English note-entry with 'cn', etc., for naturals when
>> I would say "natural" and I find it helpful.  If anyone else will use it,
>> I'll push for it and put it in LilyPond.
>
>
> Hmm. . . . I am an American and I am opposed, for the reasons given in the
> previous discussion(s). My 2 cents.
>
> Thanks to all for your help and input,
>
> Ralph
>
> --
> Ralph Palmer
> Brattleboro, VT
> USA
> palmer.r.vio...@gmail.com
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

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

[Paul Morris]

Another American here, but I don't have a very strong opinion on this.  I can
see arguments on both sides.

-Paul



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/would-gn-for-G-natural-be-useful-in-language-english-tp165872p168834.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

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

[Michael Ellis]

Also American, can't see the need for this because LP supports defining
your own pitch names in an include file.

For example, I once made an include file (attached) that supports both
English and Chromatic Fixed Do solfege, i.e. one can enter an E-flat major
scale as either

ef f g af bf c d ef

or

me fa sol le te do re me

or any mixture of the two systems (but that way lies madness.)


Cheers,
Mike

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Paul Morris  wrote:

> Another American here, but I don't have a very strong opinion on this.  I
> can
> see arguments on both sides.
>
> -Paul
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/would-gn-for-G-natural-be-useful-in-language-english-tp165872p168834.html
> Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>


english-solfa.ly
Description: Binary data
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

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

[Keith OHara]

Ralph Palmer  gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Keith OHara  oco.net> 
wrote:Dear list,
> In English, pronouncing the 'natural' in 'C-natural' is required if the 
note is out-of-key.  LilyPond does not consider the key when reading note-
input, but could easily accept 'cn' as a name for the pitch C-natural.  There 
was a feature request on the bug-list, that LilyPond do so.
> Among those responding to the proposal, the Americans were in favor, while 
the British Germans Dutch and Flemish opposed.
> I have started using English note-entry with 'cn', etc., for naturals when 
I would say "natural" and I find it helpful.  If anyone else will use it, 
I'll push for it and put it in LilyPond.
> 
> Hmm. . . . I am an American and I am opposed, for the reasons given in the 
previous discussion(s). My 2 cents.
>

Then I'll propose that LilyPond accept 'cn' only when the user requests
that input style, and I won't call that style 'American'.

Another inconvenience with \language"english" is that its default names
are the long forms, so
  \displayLilyMusic \transpose c e {fs as cs}
is not as helpful for rearranging music as it could be.

I'm proposing \language"abbreviated" for people who want to use
\displayLilyMusic to generate brief english, and/or want to type
'cn' for the same reasons that we sometimes pronounce 'natural'
in English. 


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

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

[Paul Morris]

Keith OHara wrote
> Then I'll propose that LilyPond accept 'cn' only when the user requests
> that input style, and I won't call that style 'American'.
> 
> Another inconvenience with \language"english" is that its default names
> are the long forms, so
>   \displayLilyMusic \transpose c e {fs as cs}
> is not as helpful for rearranging music as it could be.
> 
> I'm proposing \language"abbreviated" for people who want to use
> \displayLilyMusic to generate brief english, and/or want to type
> 'cn' for the same reasons that we sometimes pronounce 'natural'
> in English.
> ;

+1 for adding an opt-in way to use 'cn' (etc.) via another version of the
'english' input language.  This allows for use of this helpful form of input
without confusing new users who still haven't learned LilyPond's input
syntax (which I believe was the main objection to modifying 'english'
itself).

Cheers,
-Paul



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/would-gn-for-G-natural-be-useful-in-language-english-tp165872p169051.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

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

[Keith OHara]

Paul Morris  paulwmorris.com> writes:

> Keith OHara wrote
> > 
> > I'm proposing \language"abbreviated" 
> 
> +1 for adding an opt-in way to use 'cn' (etc.) via another version of the
> 'english' input language.  This allows for use of this helpful form of 
input
> without confusing new users who still haven't learned LilyPond's input
> syntax (which I believe was the main objection to modifying 'english'
> itself).
> 

The proposed \language "abbreviated"  met resistance, arguing that it is
a worse choice than adding 'bn' to \language "english", and that any 
use of 'bn' in LilyPond implies some distinction to 'b' that LilyPond
does not preserve.

Nevertheless, written English uses -natural in a systematic way
https://archive.org/stream/wellknownpianoso00wilkrich/
wellknownpianoso00wilkrich_djvu.txt
and I find that helpful in typing LilyPond, so I am taking Michael Ellis'
suggestion to use an include file containing the note names I use

pitchnames = #`(
(cff . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 DOUBLE-FLAT))
(cf . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 FLAT))
(c  . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 NATURAL))
(cn . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 NATURAL))
%% et cetera
#(ly:parser-set-note-names parser pitchnames)


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

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

[Paul Morris]

Keith OHara wrote
> so I am taking Michael Ellis' suggestion to use an include file containing
> the note names I use

Ok, for anyone else interested, here is the full include file for using 'gn'
style note names:

english-n.ly
  

The content of the file is also below just for good measure.

Cheers,
-Paul



pitchnames =
#`(
(cff . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 DOUBLE-FLAT))
(cf . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 FLAT))
(c  . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 NATURAL))
(cn . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 NATURAL))
(cs . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 SHARP))
(css . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 DOUBLE-SHARP))
(cx . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 0 DOUBLE-SHARP))

(dff . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 DOUBLE-FLAT))
(df . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 FLAT))
(d  . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 NATURAL))
(dn . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 NATURAL))
(ds . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 SHARP))
(dss . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 DOUBLE-SHARP))
(dx . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 1 DOUBLE-SHARP))

(eff . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 2 DOUBLE-FLAT))
(ef . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 2 FLAT))
(e  . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 2 NATURAL))
(en . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 2 NATURAL))
(es . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 2 SHARP))
(ess . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 2 DOUBLE-SHARP))
(ex . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 2 DOUBLE-SHARP))

(fff . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 3 DOUBLE-FLAT))
(ff . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 3 FLAT))
(f  . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 3 NATURAL))
(fn . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 3 NATURAL))
(fs . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 3 SHARP))
(fss . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 3 DOUBLE-SHARP))
(fx . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 3 DOUBLE-SHARP))

(gff . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 4 DOUBLE-FLAT))
(gf . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 4 FLAT))
(g  . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 4 NATURAL))
(gn . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 4 NATURAL))
(gs . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 4 SHARP))
(gss . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 4 DOUBLE-SHARP))
(gx . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 4 DOUBLE-SHARP))

(aff . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 5 DOUBLE-FLAT))
(af . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 5 FLAT))
(a  . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 5 NATURAL))
(an . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 5 NATURAL))
(as . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 5 SHARP))
(ass . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 5 DOUBLE-SHARP))
(ax . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 5 DOUBLE-SHARP))

(bff . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 6 DOUBLE-FLAT))
(bf . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 6 FLAT))
(b  . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 6 NATURAL))
(bn . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 6 NATURAL))
(bs . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 6 SHARP))
(bss . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 6 DOUBLE-SHARP))
(bx . ,(ly:make-pitch -1 6 DOUBLE-SHARP))
)
#(ly:parser-set-note-names parser pitchnames)




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/would-gn-for-G-natural-be-useful-in-language-english-tp165872p169409.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

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

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
From: "Keith OHara" 

To: 
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 7:41 AM
Subject: would 'gn' for G-natural be useful in \language "english" ?



Dear user list,
  The suggestion quoted below from the bug-lilypond list

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'.
I am not sure if something similar makes sense in fixed-do naming as used 
in French and Spanish.


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



My vote: no.  I don't see the point of adding an alias.

--
Phil Holmes 



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

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

[Brian Barker]

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

The suggestion quoted below from the bug-lilypond list

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
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

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 
wrote:

> At 23:41 28/08/2014 -0700, Keith OHara wrote:
>
>> The suggestion quoted below from the bug-lilypond list
>> 
>> 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
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

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

[Brian Barker]

At 07:20 29/08/2014 -0700, Knute Snortum wrote:
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.


Agreed.


In the key of D, say, some people will say "cee" when they mean "cee-sharp".


I've heard that only very seldom, and I've always thought of it as a 
simple mistake.



"cee-natural" shows you haven't made this mistake.


It shows something to a human reader, but the suggestion I was 
responding to is that it should show nothing to Lilypond - that "c" 
and "cn" should be synonymous.



So it seems natural (!) that LilyPond would include this sort of emphasis.


Not at all.

Writing "cs" (with \language "english" and \key d \major) is 
confusing to newcomers -- as evidenced by the section in the 
documentation under Accidentals.


That's certainly true. But I see that as a good reason *not* to 
include "cn" as a notation: it would not help accuracy or 
communication with the program and would encourage those newcomers to 
maintain their confusion. I remember the time early in my use of 
Lilypond that I typed something like "bn" in the key of, perhaps, F 
major - no doubt whilst imagining the necessary accidental in the 
output. I was initially confused that it was objected to by the 
program, wondering for a second or two what the code for "natural" 
had to be if it wasn't "n", but this experience forced me to remember 
(and learn) that I needed to be writing in Lilypond-speak, not in 
Music-speak. If I hadn't had that jolt, I would soon have been 
writing "b" when I meant (and needed) "bf".


"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.


But the compiler is the only reader: there is no other! Well, that's 
true for my input files, anyway.


Brian Barker  



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

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

[Keith OHara]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 03:06:31 -0700, Brian Barker  
wrote:


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

The suggestion quoted below from the bug-lilypond list

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?



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).  English speakers use 
"C-natural" to name the pitch in contexts where the key has sharped the scale-step C.



 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.



The feature-request implicitly assumed, based on experience, that such errors 
already happen.  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.

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' ?


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

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

[Johan Vromans]

Brian Barker  writes:

> 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.

+1

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

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

[Brian Barker]

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  



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user