Re: GDP: fourth rearrangement

[Trevor Bača]

On 9/14/07, Valentin Villenave <address@hidden> wrote:
> 2007/9/14, Mats Bengtsson <address@hidden>:
>
> > - In Rhythms, I would like to rearrange the order a bit, to put the most
> >   common aspects at the top. For example:
>
> Yes, this is precisely what I thought when I first read your plan
> Graham; that's almost funny to find a long list of more and more
> complex features with always longer names, and then just: "bars" and
> "Rests"  :)
> I like Mats' order very much.

Same over here. Very clean.



> > - You have a much better feeling for the English language than I do, but
> >   do you think that we should keep the current mixture of "staff" and
> > "stave"
> >   to denote the same thing, for example in the subsection titles within
> > "Staff notation"?
>
> Specially 1.4.1 "displaying staffs"; I always thought that "staves"
> was the most common form for the plural (haven't seen much "staffs"
> while translating the doc): can you tell us about it Graham?

Always "staves", please; never "staffs".

(Usage note: a musical "staff" pluralizes always to "staves", much
like [leaf / leaves] and [knife / knives], and so on; supposedly
there's a closed set of, I believe, 19 such f->v nouns in English that
come from a time when French overlords had a greater hand in the
spelling of English than at the moment. The word "staffs" does exist,
but never refers to musical staves; instead "staffs" would have to
mean the plural of "walking sticks" as in "The guide made sure there
were staffs for the entire group on the hiking trip." Of course you
can also have "staffs" as a 3ps verb as in "She staffs her team with
excellent people." And, finally, just to make things confusing, you
*can* use "stave" in the musical sense as a replacement for singular
"staff", if you really want to (though it's unusual in the US; maybe
this is a British thing). So [staff / staves] is perfectly acceptable
in the musical sense; and so too is [stave / staves]; but never [staff
/ *staffs].)




> > - How about adding some section like "Other typesetting features", which
> > could
> >   contain things that don't really fit in anywhere else, like the four I
> > mentioned above.
>
> IMO, it's generally preferable to avoid any "Other" titles. (which is
> why I suggested to rename 8.4.7 and 9.3.9). but that doesn't mean a
> subsection can't be created with a more relevant title (if there's
> any).
>
> > - Again, I might not have the right intuition for English language, but
> > how about
> >   replacing "Text in a score" with something along the lines of "Textual
> > annotations"
>
> Or "Textual indications" (which we often use in the French translation)
>
> > - Why doesn't Text markup commands belong under 1.17.2 Text markup?
>
> Because the two list pages are very different from the others (they're
> generated like the program Reference). I think Graham's right to put
> them at the end of the chapter. Maybe we  could emphasize that
> difference, later, by renaming "overview of text markup commands" in
> "Text markup commands Reference" or something...
>
> -I'm not very happy with "staff notation" coming so soon. I think it
> would be better after "note heads and stems", maybe like this:
>
>             1.1 Pitches
>          o 1.2 Rhythms
>          o 1.3 Expressive marks
>          o 1.5 Repeats
>          o 1.6 Polyphony
>          o 1.8 Note heads and stems
>          o 1.4 Staff notation
>          o 1.7 Educational use
>
> What about it?
>
> Regards,
> Valentin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
>


-- 
Trevor Bača
address@hidden