Sunday, February 9, 2020, 2:09:09 PM, you wrote:
>> On 9 Feb 2020, at 13:23, lilyp...@ptoye.com wrote: >> >> ------------------------- >> Friday, February 7, 2020, 8:39:36 PM, you wrote: >> >>> Am 06.02.2020 um 22:55 schrieb >>> thomasmorle...@gmail.com: >>>> https://codereview.appspot.com/579280043/diff/563480043/Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely >>>> File Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely (right): >>>> >>>> https://codereview.appspot.com/579280043/diff/563480043/Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely#newcode162 >>>> Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely:162: @notation{note names} >>>> and @notation{accidentals}, >>>> Here I disagree. >>>>> From wikpedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alteration >>>> "In music, alteration is the use of a neighboring pitch in the chromatic >>>> scale in place of its diatonic neighbor." >>>> An _accidental_ is the printed ♯-sign or ♭-sign, etc, indicating the >>>> alteration. >>>> Thus "accidentals" is plain wrong here. Please keep "alterations" >>> That were my thoughts, too. >>> But I ascribe more importance to Peter's >>> opinion (as a native speaker) >>> than to mine, so >>> it is difficult for me to decide now... >> >> Is 'alteration' an American English term? I've never heard it in British >> English. But our languages diverge... Are there any US speakers in this >> discussion? Wikipedia tends to have a US bias IMHO. > +1, with respect to accidentals. I'm an en_GB speaker. >> >> 'Alteration' does not appear at all as a heading in the Oxford Companion to >> Music. However, 'accidental' is defined as a 'sign used in musical >> notation', which rather leaves open the question of how to describe a change >> to a note in the abstract. Something I've not really thought about. Hmmm... > From a speed-reading of Gould, it appears that > she uses the verb "alter" and the adjective > "altered", but _not_ the noun "alteration" in this context. > It is worth noting that "alteration" has a very > specific and well-established meaning in early > music. This meaning has nothing whatsoever to > do with pitch. I've, ahem, altered that > Wikipedia disambiguation page accordingly. > The original section header in the LM seemed > fine to me, but if it needs to change, how about > "Note names and use of accidentals" ? It seems > to me that a user wanting to use the document to > figure out how to specify an accidental, is > quite likely to search for that word. I like that one. >> >> But this leaves me very unhappy about NR 1.1.1.4, which is called >> 'accidentals' when the first sentence is describing alterations: cis in D >> major is an alteration, not an accidental. >> >>>> >>>> Probably: >>>> @notation{note names} and their @notation{alterations}, >>>> >>>> https://codereview.appspot.com/579280043/
