Flaming Hakama by Elaine <address@hidden> writes:
This is probably tilting at windmills at this point,
since we seem to have adopted this language,
both in LilyPond and in the ee.
But, from the perspective of our terminology reflecting English language
usage,
I feel compelled to point out that "consist" and "consisted"
are not used in English as active verbs.
Yes, these do work in the passive, or in the past tense.
As in "my meal consisted of steak and potatoes",
or "my meal consists of steak and potatoes".
But you would not say, "I consisted a meal of steak and potatoes", nor
would you say, "I consisted parsley to a meal of steak and potatoes."
So you are complaining that our use of the verb does not match the
description of some naturally occuring entirely different phenomenon?
But when using it as a word, it does not parse well:
When an engraver is consisted to a Voice or Staff or similar context
only properties created through overrides are visible to the
acknowledger while tweaks seem to be hidden. However, if I consist the
engraver to Score also tweaks are recognized.
Here is a usage of the \consists command:
\context {
\Staff
\consists Mark_engraver
\consists Metronome_mark_engraver
}
To convey what this does, it would be more along the lines of
"Create a Staff context that consists of a Mark_engraver and
Metronome_mark_engraver".
Which forms a grammatical statement which, when interpreted at its
grammatical meaning, is factually utterly wrong.
I mean, you could say that, but it does not make sense to a native
English speaker.
Which is better than making wrong sense. It makes obvious that we are
using a non-standard sense of the word borrowing from the meaning of the
reserved word in its context of LilyPond rather than the natural world.
In this sense, if commands are to be read as verbs, maybe we should change
the command name.
Is there a reason why we couldn't use \with, or \add ?
\context {
\Staff
\with Mark_engraver
\with Metronome_mark_engraver
}
\with is taken.