Re: would 'gn' for G-natural be useful in \language "english" ?

[Michael Ellis]

Also American, can't see the need for this because LP supports defining your own pitch names in an include file.  

For example, I once made an include file (attached) that supports both English and Chromatic Fixed Do solfege, i.e. one can enter an E-flat major scale as either

ef f g af bf c d ef

or

me fa sol le te do re me 

or any mixture of the two systems (but that way lies madness.)

Cheers,
Mike

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Paul Morris <address@hidden> wrote:

Another American here, but I don't have a very strong opinion on this.  I can
see arguments on both sides.

-Paul



--
View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/would-gn-for-G-natural-be-useful-in-language-english-tp165872p168834.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

english-solfa.ly
Description: Binary data