Hi, Graham Percival-2 wrote: > Zoltan Selyem wrote: > > I think the correct abbreviaton for "decrescendo" is "decresc." > > and not "decr." as \setTextDecresc writes it. > > Hmm. Do you have a reference or something? The only text I can find at > the moment is "dim." I'm honestly not sure if it's supposed to be decr. > or decresc.
I made a quick search at the omniscient Google. :-) It seems that in the definition of decrescendo decresc. is used more often as the abbreviation than decr. (9650 to 581) *). The decr. is used too, though and I can understand both. However, if crescendo is abbreviated cresc. then it is logical to abbreviate decrescendo decresc. by just adding a de- in the beginning. I don't have any music notation hand book close by so this point of view is not based on any hard facts. -Risto *) decrescendo decresc -> 9650 decrescendo decr -> 581 -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wrong-abbreviation---decr.-tf4849531.html#a13892738 Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
