[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GSoC 2020: Shape-note notehead encoding

From: Owen Lamb
Subject: Re: GSoC 2020: Shape-note notehead encoding
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 14:30:55 -0700

Wow! Thanks for all the sources--and the enlightening Latin discussion!

I was able to find examples of the missing Funk and Walker do, re, and ti
heads, so that's the most pressing issue done with. I'll begin writing the
proposal for those ones, but I'll hold out sending it before we get the
other points clear.

Firstly, none of the corpora (aha!) you provided or ones I found myself
seemed to present both mirrored versions of mi in the same document, as
Massive Lion claimed on the original Google Code archive should be the case
depending on stem direction at least in Funk's system. I'd be hard pressed
to make a case for our mirrored Aikin and up/down Funk variants if I can't
show them in action.

In addition, I could not find anywhere in the corpora an example of a whole
notehead being distinct from its corresponding half notehead in any style.
In our own Emmentaler font, only Walker's do, re, fa, and ti have
differences, being that the whole notes always appear as if they were the
down-stem variants of the half notes. If the only difference between whole
and half notes is forced "stem" direction, it may make more sense just to
automatically force "stem" direction within LilyPond and stick to SMuFL's
white/black specification for the glyphs themselves. Why ask fontsmiths to
duplicate so many glyphs when a scoring program can get the job done far
more easily?

More thoughts/examples would be appreciated,

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:42 PM David Kastrup <> wrote:

> Jean Abou Samra <> writes:
> > Le 22/07/2020 à 03:32, Aaron Hill a écrit :
> >
> >> On 2020-07-21 5:39 pm, Owen Lamb wrote:
> >>> corpuses (corpori?)
> >>
> >> Off-topic: "corpora" is the plural in English.  Though while
> >> "corpuses" is not technically correct, I would have no problem
> >> understanding it.
> >
> > Yes, Latin would prescribe corpora as the plural of corpus, oris due
> > to it being a neutral noun − although the relevance of this rule is
> > questionable since in a Latin sentence, it would also depend on how
> > this word is used.
> >
> > Funny story about a sort-of congressman opposing a draft bill: “Non
> > possumus! he emphatically claimed, And I'll add, Non possumi! because
> > I'm not the only one thinking so.”
> >
> > Tentative translation: “We cannot! And I'll add, we cannots, because
> > I'm not…”.
> >
> > Hope humor helps things progress,
> > Jean
> Frankly, never mind the Latin.  I get the shakes when many native
> English speakers try their hands at Early Modern English, the variant
> often used by Shakespeare and also typical for the KJV Bible
> translation, and completely mess up things like speaketh, speakest,
> thou, thee, thine; basically picking between older forms randomly.
> --
> David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]