Am 17.08.2015 22:59, schrieb Urs Liska:
Am 17.08.2015 um 20:50 schrieb Blöchl Bernhard:
Am 17.08.2015 20:20, schrieb David Kastrup:
Federico Bruni <f...@inventati.org> writes:
Il giorno lun 17 ago 2015 alle 18:16, BB
<bb-543...@telecolumbus.net>
ha scritto:
http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation-big-page.de.html#retrograde
in Chapter
1.2 Rhythmus
...
Andere rhythmische Aufteilungen
Triolen und andere rhythmische Aufteilungen werden aus einem
musikalischen Ausdruck erstellt, indem dessen Tondauern mit einem
Bruch multipliziert werden.
\times Bruch musikalischer Ausdruck
Must read \tuplet instead of \times
German translation is not up-to-date, but just yesterday a person
volunteered for working on it.
So hopefully this will be fixed.
I'm afraid the text is quite correct. It's just not overly helpful
as
the examples accompanying it have been automatically converted into
using \tuplet rather than \times.
Just changing \times to \tuplet would render the description wrong:
indeed this requires a retranslation of the new English text.
I do not understand your mail and I am fundamentally confused!
The original post is right, the German translation has not been updated
and must be corrected.
Anyway, I hope you allow me to use
\tuplet fraction { music }
instead of
\times fraction { music }
for what the english and americans call
"tuplets" ?
There has been a change or rather an extension to the syntax in one of
the more recent versions so now you can write, say, a triplet with
\tuplet 3/2 { c4 c c }
which is closer to a "natural" understanding than the earlier
\times 2/3 { c4 c c }
Today both ways are "correct", but the \tuplet syntax is the
recommended
way to express tuplets nowadays.
So while technically the current text in the manual is not "wrong" it
is
outdated and especially doesn't match the following example.
HTH
Urs
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Thanks for clarifying my confusion. As long as I used lilypond I always
used \tuplet and argue that I did not even know that \times was/is a
possible alternative.
\time and \times are very close and so - I think - dangerous and
error-prone. I think to remember I did a misspelling only once as
strting with lilypond in the past? And had trouble. Eliminated that off
my memory.
Thanks
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
