2008/2/3, Kurt Kroon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On page 10, first paragraph -- In that case, Double accidentals ... What
is this sentence quoting? Perhaps it should just be integrated into the
sentence.
It was originally a feature request posted by an user on the
mailing-list; and the contributor
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;
2008/2/3, Graham Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The one big change: since nobody has touched the texi2html stuff
on the technical TODO list (estimated: 3 hours for a perl
programmer), it appears that we're not going to get longer HTML
pages. You may recall that the original plan was to have
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)
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
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
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
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
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-
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
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
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,
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
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
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
When I haven't commented on something, it means I took your
suggestion.
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:26:22 -0800
Kurt Kroon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, the titles of the following subsections should be
considered. They are Writing pitches, Changing multiple
pitches (but see below), and
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 ...
Ok, a number of smal fixes have been made in the past week. I'm
restarting the week until declaring perfect counter.
http://web.uvic.ca/~gperciva/
If you've read it in detail recently, it's probably not worth
reading again. But if you haven't looked at it yet, please do so!
The one big
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
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
This section/chapter looks much better than it does in the current manual.
Many thanks from a musically inadept Lilypond beginner.
CONTENTS
Note names in other languages (last paragraph):
For both historical reasons and a greater simplicity, LilyPond uses a
single 's' for all these languages.
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:27:24 +0100
Kess Vargavind [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CONTENTS
Note names in other languages (last paragraph):
For both historical reasons and a greater simplicity, LilyPond uses a
single 's' for all these languages.
I'm not really sure what's intended with that
2008/1/31, Graham Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:27:24 +0100
Kess Vargavind [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CONTENTS
Note names in other languages (last paragraph):
For both historical reasons and a greater simplicity, LilyPond uses a
single 's' for all these languages.
Graham Percival-2 wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:27:24 +0100
Kess Vargavind [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FORMATTING
A small thing that nevertheless greatly would aid me in reading the
manual:
Paragraphs coming directly after a header is correctly non-indented.
Where the problem lies;
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:47:04 -0800 (PST)
till [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Graham Percival-2 wrote:
By default, texinfo does not indent the first paragraph and
indents all others; we need to specifically override this default
behavior for the strongly related material.
Well, I stumbled
2008/1/30, Graham Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Valentin, this is yours:
{transposing-pitches-with-minimum-accidentals-smart-transpose.ly}
Thanks Mark, updated :)
Cheers,
Valentin
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
Graham Percival wrote:
Final call for comments on NR 1.1 Pitches.
Just a couple of things:
= Octave checks =
To check the octave of a specific note, add = quotes after the pitch.
perhaps better:
To check the octave of a individual note, specify the absolute octave
with the = symbol.
And
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:00:05 +
Mark Knoop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
Final call for comments on NR 1.1 Pitches.
Just a couple of things:
= Octave checks =
Thanks, updated!
= Transpose =
== Selected snippets ==
The feature request quote should be consistent
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
Le mercredi 23 janvier 2008 à 10:55 -0800, Graham Percival a écrit :
2008/1/22, Graham Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I agree; I've never encountered the term half-flats. But maybe
it's a European thing? (or a poor translation from the
appropriate terms in Dutch or French or
Hi y'all,
Half-flat perfectly makes sense, as a flat is a semi-tone and we
want
to name a quarter tone i.e. a half of a half tone). However,
quarter-flat may have been already too much used to allow using
anything else...
When I speak with musicians, I almost always say a quarter-tone
Le jeudi 24 janvier 2008 à 09:11 -0500, Kieren MacMillan a écrit :
When I speak with musicians, I almost always say a quarter-tone
flat -- I rarely (if ever) say a half-flat or a quarter-flat.
But maybe that's just me...
IMHO quarter-flat/sharp is non-sense and sounds ugly when speaking of
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:50:33 +0100
John Mandereau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO quarter-flat/sharp is non-sense and sounds ugly when speaking
of quarter-tones, and it looks like from emails in this thread that
half-sharp is rarely used. quarter-tone flat/sharp is most
meaningful and
2008/1/22, Graham Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I agree; I've never encountered the term half-flats. But maybe
it's a European thing? (or a poor translation from the
appropriate terms in Dutch or French or something?)
Please do not *always* assume that because something is weird, it must
be
On Jan 23, 2008 2:39 AM, Valentin Villenave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/1/22, Graham Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I agree; I've never encountered the term half-flats. But maybe
it's a European thing? (or a poor translation from the
appropriate terms in Dutch or French or something?)
Perhaps the quarter/half thing is a confusion of terms?
If you look at flats and sharps as semi- or half-tones then a half of one of
those could be reasonably termed quarter-tones.
I've not seen a quarter flat but I have seen the term quarter tone
Ralph
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:08:23 -0600
Trevor Ba__a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 23, 2008 2:39 AM, Valentin Villenave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
2008/1/22, Graham Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I agree; I've never encountered the term half-flats. But maybe
it's a European thing? (or a
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:34:30 -0500
Palmer, Ralph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I noticed an issue regarding the See also on the TODO list:
- all the commands like @seealso use a @subsubheading, but they
appear as the same size as the @unnumberedsubsubsec headings (as
you would expect). Fix
half-flat? half-sharp?
honestly i've never encountered this expression in english in europe
or US with any ensemble or composer i've been involved with
(and i've directed and recorded a lot of microtonal music...branca,
kline, scelsi, nono, xenakis, ziporyn)
d
On 22 Jan 2008, at 07:28,
Hi, Graham -
I noticed an issue regarding the See also on the TODO list:
- all the commands like @seealso use a @subsubheading, but they
appear as the same size as the @unnumberedsubsubsec headings (as
you would expect). Fix somehow.
I had noticed that, and wondered if adding a blank line
Well, that was humbling. I honestly thought that NR 1.1 Pitches
was almost perfect, but the comments (thank you!) from last time
clearly indicated otherwise. When I tried to read the material
with a fresh mind (aided by the comments), I found many, many
things to fix.
As always, GDP here:
Graham Percival wrote:
Some sections have been completely rewritten (particularly Octave
check). Please read the new Pitches section and send comments.
- The text in Octave corrections and checks is contradictory. First it
says that
an octave check does not change the pitch, then it says
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:24:22 +0100
Mats Bengtsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
Some sections have been completely rewritten (particularly Octave
check). Please read the new Pitches section and send comments.
- The text in Octave corrections and checks is
Graham Percival wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:24:22 +0100
Mats Bengtsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
Some sections have been completely rewritten (particularly Octave
check). Please read the new Pitches section and send comments.
- The text in Octave
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:24:22 +0100
From: Mats Bengtsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: GDP: NR 1.1 Pitches vastly improved, more comments
sought
To: Graham Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: lilypond-user Mailinglist lilypond-user@gnu.org
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:36:32 +0100
Mats Bengtsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
Not true; with = the d's octave is changed; with \octave the d's
octave is not changed.
No! The difference is that = modifies the pitch on the current note,
whereas the \octave changes
On Jan 21, 2008 3:15 AM, Graham Percival [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, that was humbling. I honestly thought that NR 1.1 Pitches
was almost perfect, but the comments (thank you!) from last time
clearly indicated otherwise. When I tried to read the material
with a fresh mind (aided by the
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:16:51 -0600
Trevor Ba__a [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Umm, can we check something here?
Please, that's the whole point of this.
Half-flats and half-sharps are formed by adding eh and ih; ...
... which sounds absoutely crazy to me and should instead read ...
Rune Zedeler wrote:
Citat Mats Bengtsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- In Accidentals, I wouldn't refer to Nordic and Germanic languages,
since both Swedish,
Danish, Norwegian and German use -iss and -ess (admittedly the
same concept, but
a different spelling).
This is not correct.
In
Am Dienstag, 15. Januar 2008 schrieb Mats Bengtsson:
In Danish we do not use -ss at all. That would be a spelling mistake.
We only use the -is and -es endings (except for es and as, ofcourse).
I am pretty convinced that the same is true for German.
Sorry about the confusion. Using Google,
A few comments:
- In Relative octave entry, I would reorder the items in the itemized
list and
move the first item last (or at least below the currently second
item), since
the other items explain the concept of relative to ... which is
mentioned in the
first item.
Also, in the
2008/1/14, Mats Bengtsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A few comments:
OK, I'm applying your suggestions.
Thanks,
Valentin
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Just in case...
On Jan 14, 2008 3:50 PM, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
- In Accidentals, I wouldn't refer to Nordic and Germanic languages,
since both Swedish, Danish, Norwegian and German use
-iss and -ess (admittedly the same concept, but
a different spelling).
I guess the same applies for Note
Citat Mats Bengtsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- In Accidentals, I wouldn't refer to Nordic and Germanic languages,
since both Swedish,
Danish, Norwegian and German use -iss and -ess (admittedly the
same concept, but
a different spelling).
This is not correct.
In Danish we do not use -ss at
2008/1/14, Mats Bengtsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- In Relative octave entry, I would reorder the items in the itemized
list and
move the first item last (or at least below the currently second
item), since
the other items explain the concept of relative to ... which is
mentioned in the
In the relative octave section, paragraph beginning When octaves are
specified, I suggest we replace as above with in absolute mode,
put a pitch with put a single pitch, and prevents with
reduces. This should clarify the intent of the paragraph, and the
advantages of relative mode.
Under
On Jan 14, 2008 1:43 PM, Andrew Hawryluk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the relative octave section, paragraph beginning When octaves are
specified, I suggest we replace as above with in absolute mode,
put a pitch with put a single pitch, and prevents with
reduces. This should clarify the intent
If they are all from the Beethoven Piano Sonatas, then I can compare
them with the edition I have at home. Are there any any outside NR 1?
Andrew
On Jan 14, 2008 12:55 PM, Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 1:43 PM, Andrew Hawryluk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the relative
I have never heard of iss or ess in German either, but I didn't find it on
the pdf anymore, so I guess this is irrelevant for now. The current
formulation seems to be correct.
Till
Rune Zedeler wrote:
Citat Mats Bengtsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- In Accidentals, I wouldn't refer to Nordic and
- In Accidentals, I wouldn't refer to Nordic and Germanic
languages, since both Swedish, Danish, Norwegian and German use
-iss and -ess (admittedly the same concept, but a different
spelling).
This is not correct. In Danish we do not use -ss at all. That
would be a spelling mistake.
2008/1/14, Andrew Hawryluk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In the relative octave section, paragraph beginning When octaves are
specified, I suggest we replace as above with in absolute mode,
put a pitch with put a single pitch, and prevents with
reduces. This should clarify the intent of the paragraph,
2008/1/14 Andrew Hawryluk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If they are all from the Beethoven Piano Sonatas, then I can compare
them with the edition I have at home. Are there any any outside NR 1?
Oh excellent; indeed, they are all from the Beethoven sonatas. In fact I
believe they are all from the mid-
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:50:47 +0100
Mats Bengtsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A few comments:
General reply - anything inside
Commonly tweaked properties
is an included snippet from LSR.
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
On 1/14/08 10:19 AM, Rune Zedeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Citat Mats Bengtsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- In Accidentals, I wouldn't refer to Nordic and Germanic languages,
since both Swedish,
Danish, Norwegian and German use -iss and -ess (admittedly the
same concept, but
a different
Hi and thanks,
On Jan 14, 2008 8:28 PM, Valentin Villenave wrote:
Risto: I have changed the sentence. Tell me if it is better this way.
Damn. I already forgot how it was before. :-) Just a couple of
comments – no show stoppers, though. Do what you wish with the
comments below.
I guess the
I'm still seeking comments on NR 1.1 Pitches. As far as I know,
only one advanced user has read the whole thing in the past month.
If you read it and didn't see any problems, please let me know.
View it here (and not on lilypond.org!)
http://web.uvic.ca/~gperciva/
A pdf is available. The
66 matches
Mail list logo
