From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Oct 25 20:40:22 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:40:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IlG3a-0002R6-JT for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:40:22 -0700 Received: from smtp.mail.umich.edu ([141.211.93.161] helo=tombraider.mr.itd.umich.edu) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IlG3U-0002QE-FJ for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:40:19 -0700 Received: FROM [141.213.217.162] (bursley-217-162.reshall.umich.edu [141.213.217.162]) BY tombraider.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 47216161.DC631.11153 ; 25 Oct 2007 23:39:14 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <71550650710251653p80bac49we64a3d4cd01252c4@mail.gmail.com> References: <97f5058c0710231546w35fb2e6dx278434c13a16797e@mail.gmail.com> <97f5058c0710251106j3c997fecx3430b95159716e94@mail.gmail.com> <97f5058c0710251415w1c1013b9ub3de3faaf736d7f8@mail.gmail.com> <71550650710251632g2603ef69o5807c3bde18700b4@mail.gmail.com> <64e5cd9c0710251644t109185b9hc47811dae372880d@mail.gmail.com> <71550650710251653p80bac49we64a3d4cd01252c4@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Alex Martini Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Music note names? Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:38:42 -0400 To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-Spam-Score-Int: 1 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 5670 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: alexjm@umich.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Oct 25, 2007, at 7:53 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: > Yes. We could attach them to some rafsi to make a fu'ivla. tog- > would work, so we can have togydo-togyre-togymi... > > Of course, that makes the note names longer than they are in any > language, but we really don't need it. strings of note-names could > always be quoted. > [ li'o ] >>> On 10/25/07, Yoav Nir wrote: >>> I believe these schemes are used around the world. Any reason >>> why we should opt for something completely different? >>>> [ li'o ] >>>> >>>> On 25/10/2007, Penguino wrote: >>>>> On second though, perhaps C should be no. That way intervals >>>>> can be calculated in mod-12 arithmetic? >>>>> >>>>> C - no >>>>> C#/Db - pa >>>>> D - re >>>>> D#/Eb - ci >>>>> E - vo >>>>> F - mu >>>>> F#/Gb - xa >>>>> G - ze >>>>> G#/Ab - bi >>>>> A - so >>>>> A#/Bb - dau >>>>> B - fei I think that the numbers used as fu'ivla might work better. The limitation with do-re-mi and A-B-C is that they can only describe modern Western music (with 12 evenly spaced divisions per octave). In my experience as a violinist, only choral folk know do-re-me in the US. But in Europe, A-B-C is less common and do-re-me is more common. This makes them less than neutral in my opinion. I think that everyone can pretty easily understand numbering the notes. But assigning them semi-random syllables is hard to understand if you're not used to it. (Actually not that random -- they were originally based on a hymn. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solfege ) On the flip side, using numbers can describe whatever system you need. Byzantine notation uses 72 divisions per octave, for example. It's also all written by relative distance between notes, so the numerical approach would make more sense to someone used to reading that notation. And the traditional Chinese notations tend to be tablature based (they describe where your fingers go) or numerical. So you would have {togyno} {togypa} {togyre} and so on. You could specify "European tugyno" for clarity, and just use bare {no} when it was obviously a musical note. Also, is {togyno} valid? Jbofi'e prefers {togrno}, and I seem to remember {r} being the typical rafsi glue for making fu'ivla. mu'o mi'e .aleks.