2008/2/4, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Interesting! I must admit that I found nothing objectionable with
> the "which"es 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 "
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 contrib
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 cont
> 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. :)
Wh
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
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-
annoy
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 w
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
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..."
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'
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
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 othe
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 (re
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 mak
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 writ
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),
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
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
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:10:23 -
"Trevor Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Relative octave entry:
> There is a much simpler way of describing how this works.
> It's in 2.1.2 of the LM: a note is placed in the octave
> which is within three staff spaces of the previous note,
> ignoring all ac
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 s
Valentin Villenave wrote:
2008/1/31, Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Relative octave entry:
There is a much simpler way of describing how this works.
It's in 2.1.2 of the LM: a note is placed in the octave
which is within three staff spaces of the previous note,
ignoring all accidental
? Is it an
issue in html? Otherwise I would suggest to insert @lilypond/@example and so
on
without surrounding blank lines, in that way we would easily get the
@noindent without
writing it out.
Greetings
Till
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/GDP%3A-NR-1.1-Pitches--2008-01-26-t
2008/1/31, Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Relative octave entry:
> There is a much simpler way of describing how this works.
> It's in 2.1.2 of the LM: a note is placed in the octave
> which is within three staff spaces of the previous note,
> ignoring all accidentals. Simply count staff s
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
Graham, you wrote:
>
> Final call for comments on NR 1.1 Pitches.
In general all is very clear. I spotted only a couple of
things to comment on:
1.1.1:
Head:
convient -> convenient
Relative octave entry:
There is a much simpler way of describing how this works.
It's in 2.1.2 of the LM: a note
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 wi
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."
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
http://lists.
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 b
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."
An
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 ch
31 matches
Mail list logo
