Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning-math Paul's nifty fifty

Here is what I am suggesting for names for Paul's list of 50
temperaments. Septischismic in place of schismic, augie in the place
of augmented, and erethezontic in the place of biporky have been
discussed. Minorsemi from the approximate 21/20 generator, and
duodecal because like waage it's got 12 on the brain.

In the 5-limit, the names minorsemi and tertiatonic come from the
discussion of 12-note 5-limit Fokker blocks around tuning-math 8300 to
8400. Superpythagorean corresponds to the 7-limit name, and corrects a
typo for the comma.

[1, 4, 10, 4, 13, 12] meantone
[5, 1, 12, -10, 5, 25] magic
[2, -4, -4, -11, -12, 2] pajara
[7, 9, 13, -2, 1, 5] semisixths
[1, 4, -2, 4, -6, -16] dominant sevenths
[2, 8, 8, 8, 7, -4] injera
[6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7] kleismic
[2, 8, 1, 8, -4, -20] hemifourths
[4, -3, 2, -14, -8, 13] negri
[3, 0, -6, -7, -18, -14] augmented
[1, -8, -14, -15, -25, -10] septischismic?
[1, 9, -2, 12, -6, -30] superpythagorean
[7, -3, 8, -21, -7, 27] orwell
[3, 0, 6, -7, 1, 14] augie
[3, 5, -6, 1, -18, -28] porcupine
[6, 10, 10, 2, -1, -5] erethezontic?
[3, 12, -1, 12, -10, -36] supermajor seconds
[1, 4, -9, 4, -17, -32] flattone
[4, 4, 4, -3, -5, -2] diminished
[6, 10, 3, 2, -12, -21] minorsemi?
[0, 0, 12, 0, 19, 28] duodecal?
[3, 12, 11, 12, 9, -8] gawel
[10, 9, 7, -9, -17, -9] nonkleismic
[6, -7, -2, -25, -20, 15] miracle
[2, -9, -4, -19, -12, 16] beatles
[6, -2, -2, -17, -20, 1] lemba
[8, 6, 6, -9, -13, -3] doublewide
[0, 5, 0, 8, 0, -14] blackwood
[18, 27, 18, 1, -22, -34] ennealimmal

25/24 dicot
81/80 meantone
128/125 augmented
135/128 pelogic
250/243 porcupine
256/243 blackwood
648/625 diminished
2048/2025 diaschismic
3125/3072 magic
6561/6250 ragisemi
15625/15552 hanson
16875/16384 negri
20000/19683 tetracot
20480/19683 superpythagorean
32805/32768 schismic
78732/78125 semisixths
262144/253125 tertiatonic
393216/390625 wuerschmidt
531441/524288 aristoxenan
1600000/1594323 amity
2109375/2097152 orwell

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> Here is what I am suggesting for names for Paul's list of 50
> temperaments.

Thanks.

> Septischismic in place of schismic, augie in the place
> of augmented, and erethezontic in the place of biporky have been
> discussed.

If a porcupine is a member of the erethezontic family, wouldn't that
falsely suggest that one temperament is more general than the other?

> Minorsemi from the approximate 21/20 generator, and
> duodecal because like waage it's got 12 on the brain.

What happened to "catler"?

>
> In the 5-limit, the names minorsemi and tertiatonic come from the
> discussion of 12-note 5-limit Fokker blocks around tuning-math 8300
to
> 8400. Superpythagorean corresponds to the 7-limit name, and
corrects a
> typo for the comma.
>
> [1, 4, 10, 4, 13, 12] meantone
> [5, 1, 12, -10, 5, 25] magic
> [2, -4, -4, -11, -12, 2] pajara
> [7, 9, 13, -2, 1, 5] semisixths
> [1, 4, -2, 4, -6, -16] dominant sevenths
> [2, 8, 8, 8, 7, -4] injera
> [6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7] kleismic
> [2, 8, 1, 8, -4, -20] hemifourths
semifourths, I think.

> [4, -3, 2, -14, -8, 13] negri
> [3, 0, -6, -7, -18, -14] augmented
> [1, -8, -14, -15, -25, -10] septischismic?
> [1, 9, -2, 12, -6, -30] superpythagorean
> [7, -3, 8, -21, -7, 27] orwell
> [3, 0, 6, -7, 1, 14] augie
> [3, 5, -6, 1, -18, -28] porcupine
> [6, 10, 10, 2, -1, -5] erethezontic?
> [3, 12, -1, 12, -10, -36] supermajor seconds
Anyone have another suggestion?

> [1, 4, -9, 4, -17, -32] flattone
> [4, 4, 4, -3, -5, -2] diminished
> [6, 10, 3, 2, -12, -21] minorsemi?
> [0, 0, 12, 0, 19, 28] duodecal?
> [3, 12, 11, 12, 9, -8] gawel
> [10, 9, 7, -9, -17, -9] nonkleismic
> [6, -7, -2, -25, -20, 15] miracle
> [2, -9, -4, -19, -12, 16] beatles
> [6, -2, -2, -17, -20, 1] lemba
> [8, 6, 6, -9, -13, -3] doublewide
> [0, 5, 0, 8, 0, -14] blackwood
> [18, 27, 18, 1, -22, -34] ennealimmal
>
>
> 25/24 dicot
> 81/80 meantone
> 128/125 augmented
> 135/128 pelogic
mavila.

> 250/243 porcupine
> 256/243 blackwood
> 648/625 diminished
> 2048/2025 diaschismic
> 3125/3072 magic
> 6561/6250 ragisemi
A little too wild.

> 15625/15552 hanson
> 16875/16384 negri
> 20000/19683 tetracot
> 20480/19683 superpythagorean
> 32805/32768 schismic
> 78732/78125 semisixths
> 262144/253125 tertiatonic
meaning?

> 393216/390625 wuerschmidt
> 531441/524288 aristoxenan
compton.

> 1600000/1594323 amity
> 2109375/2097152 orwell

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:

> If a porcupine is a member of the erethezontic family, wouldn't that
> falsely suggest that one temperament is more general than the other?

"Hedgehog" seems good.

> > Minorsemi from the approximate 21/20 generator, and
> > duodecal because like waage it's got 12 on the brain.
>
> What happened to "catler"?

I forgot about it. Is the attribution of this to Catler securely based?

> > [2, 8, 1, 8, -4, -20] hemifourths
> semifourths, I think.

OK.

> > 135/128 pelogic
> mavila.

Is that one "l" or two?

> > 6561/6250 ragisemi
> A little too wild.

"Ragisemitonic" seems worse; what about "ragitonic"? See message 8331
for this comma.

> > 262144/253125 tertiatonic
> meaning?

It's another 12-et comma, which I couldn't find a name for when I was
considering 12-note Fokker blocks. The name comes from the fact that
it is a third of a tone--see

/tuning-math/message/8338

> > 393216/390625 wuerschmidt
> > 531441/524288 aristoxenan
> compton.

This is the second time you've wanted to change this one. :)

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
wrote:
>
> > If a porcupine is a member of the erethezontic family, wouldn't
that
> > falsely suggest that one temperament is more general than the
other?
>
> "Hedgehog" seems good.
>
> > > Minorsemi from the approximate 21/20 generator, and
> > > duodecal because like waage it's got 12 on the brain.
> >
> > What happened to "catler"?
>
> I forgot about it. Is the attribution of this to Catler securely
>based?

Well, his tuning is very different from TOP, but the addition of 7-
limit notes at a fixed offset from a basic 12-equal 5-limit system is
clearly the basis behind the FreeNote 12-tone-plus guitars.

> > > [2, 8, 1, 8, -4, -20] hemifourths
> > semifourths, I think.
>
> OK.
>
>
> > > 135/128 pelogic
> > mavila.
>
> Is that one "l" or two?

One.

> > > 6561/6250 ragisemi
> > A little too wild.
>
> "Ragisemitonic" seems worse; what about "ragitonic"? See message
8331
> for this comma.

I remember you mentioned it was a ragisma off from 21/20. That's what
I see as a little too wild -- bringing in all these 7-limit intervals
when we're still in 5-limit land.

> > > 262144/253125 tertiatonic
> > meaning?
>
> It's another 12-et comma, which I couldn't find a name for when I
was
> considering 12-note Fokker blocks. The name comes from the fact that
> it is a third of a tone--see
>
> /tuning-math/message/8338

This seems to go against the grain -- if the comma vanishes, it's not
a third of any nonzero interval.

> > > 393216/390625 wuerschmidt
> > > 531441/524288 aristoxenan
> > compton.
>
> This is the second time you've wanted to change this one. :)

As I've mentioned before, Carl pointed out the Compton reference for
this, and it seems the earliest we have.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:

> > > What happened to "catler"?
> >
> > I forgot about it. Is the attribution of this to Catler securely
> >based?
>
> Well, his tuning is very different from TOP, but the addition of 7-
> limit notes at a fixed offset from a basic 12-equal 5-limit system is
> clearly the basis behind the FreeNote 12-tone-plus guitars.

Catler it is, I guess.

> I remember you mentioned it was a ragisma off from 21/20. That's what
> I see as a little too wild -- bringing in all these 7-limit intervals
> when we're still in 5-limit land.

However you slice it, it's nearly the same size as 21/20. The
generator is slightly sharper--less than a schisma sharper--than 100
cents, and represents either 27/25 or 250/243, but of course these are
not very close in size to 100 cents.

> > > > 262144/253125 tertiatonic
> > > meaning?
> >
> > It's another 12-et comma, which I couldn't find a name for when I
> was
> > considering 12-note Fokker blocks. The name comes from the fact that
> > it is a third of a tone--see
> >
> > /tuning-math/message/8338
>
> This seems to go against the grain -- if the comma vanishes, it's not
> a third of any nonzero interval.

You could describe the relationship differently. The point is that
(10/9)/(262144/253125)^3 = kwazy comma. Kwazytone?

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

Paul Erlich wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> > wrote:
>>Septischismic in place of schismic, augie in the place
>>of augmented, and erethezontic in the place of biporky have been
>>discussed.
> > > If a porcupine is a member of the erethezontic family, wouldn't that > falsely suggest that one temperament is more general than the other?

Actually, "porcupine" is more general; there are New World porcupines (Erethizontidae) (note the "i": not "Erethezontidae") and Old World porcupines (Hystricidae). So if <<3, 5, 1, 1, -7, -12]] is tentatively "Hystrix", maybe <<6, 10, 10, 2, -1, -5]] could be "Erethizon".

>>[3, 12, -1, 12, -10, -36] supermajor seconds
> > Anyone have another suggestion?

Trimeantone? (3 generators = a meantone fifth)
Or just plain supermajor?

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@I...>
wrote:
> Paul Erlich wrote:
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...>
> > wrote:
> >>Septischismic in place of schismic, augie in the place
> >>of augmented, and erethezontic in the place of biporky have been
> >>discussed.
> >
> >
> > If a porcupine is a member of the erethezontic family, wouldn't
that
> > falsely suggest that one temperament is more general than the
other?
>
> Actually, "porcupine" is more general; there are New World
porcupines
> (Erethizontidae) (note the "i": not "Erethezontidae") and Old World
> porcupines (Hystricidae). So if <<3, 5, 1, 1, -7, -12]] is
tentatively
> "Hystrix", maybe <<6, 10, 10, 2, -1, -5]] could be "Erethizon".
>
> >>[3, 12, -1, 12, -10, -36] supermajor seconds
> >
> > Anyone have another suggestion?
>
> Trimeantone? (3 generators = a meantone fifth)
> Or just plain supermajor?

If you ignore the 5 axis, this temperament has been referred to
as "wonder" and "slendric" -- correct?

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote:
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> >>>>[3, 12, -1, 12, -10, -36] supermajor seconds
> >>>
> >>>Anyone have another suggestion?
> >>
> >>Trimeantone? (3 generators = a meantone fifth)
> >>Or just plain supermajor?
> >
> >
> > If you ignore the 5 axis, this temperament has been referred to
> > as "wonder" and "slendric" -- correct?
>
> For some reason I have <<3, 17, -1, 20, -10, -50]] listed as
"Slendric /
> Wonder". But actually <<3, 7, -1, 4, -10, -22]] might be a better fit
> for the description on http://x31eq.com/catalog.htm. Any of
> these could be "slendric" or "wonder" (it might be useful to assign
each
> of these names to a different temperament).

I'd advise keeping the name "wonder" for <<3 17 -1 20 -10 -50||. This
is clearly much more consistent with what Margo had in mind as a
{2,3,7} linear temperament using 1029/1024. Margo is not much of a fan
of flat fifths, for starters, and the tunings are consistent. Graham's
site seems to be unavailable at the moment, but I have no objections
to "slendric" in place of "supermajor seconds", an ugly name even if I
am responsible for it.

"Wonder" adds 245/243 to 1029/1024 linear to extend to the 7-limit and
"slendric" 81/80 if we adopt this naming system. "Slendric" would then
be closely associated to 31-et; "wonder" would be 41&46. Both extend
nicely to the 11-limit.

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@I...>
wrote:
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> >>>>[3, 12, -1, 12, -10, -36] supermajor seconds
> >>>
> >>>Anyone have another suggestion?
> >>
> >>Trimeantone? (3 generators = a meantone fifth)
> >>Or just plain supermajor?
> >
> >
> > If you ignore the 5 axis, this temperament has been referred to
> > as "wonder" and "slendric" -- correct?
>
> For some reason I have <<3, 17, -1, 20, -10, -50]] listed
as "Slendric /
> Wonder". But actually <<3, 7, -1, 4, -10, -22]] might be a better
fit
> for the description on http://x31eq.com/catalog.htm. Any
of
> these could be "slendric" or "wonder" (it might be useful to assign
each
> of these names to a different temperament).

But both names apply to a system where there is no prime 5.

Hola from España.

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@I...>
wrote:
> > Paul Erlich wrote:
> >
> > >>>>[3, 12, -1, 12, -10, -36] supermajor seconds
> > >>>
> > >>>Anyone have another suggestion?
> > >>
> > >>Trimeantone? (3 generators = a meantone fifth)
> > >>Or just plain supermajor?
> > >
> > >
> > > If you ignore the 5 axis, this temperament has been referred to
> > > as "wonder" and "slendric" -- correct?
> >
> > For some reason I have <<3, 17, -1, 20, -10, -50]] listed as
> "Slendric /
> > Wonder". But actually <<3, 7, -1, 4, -10, -22]] might be a better
fit
> > for the description on http://x31eq.com/catalog.htm.
Any of
> > these could be "slendric" or "wonder" (it might be useful to
assign
> each
> > of these names to a different temperament).
>
> I'd advise keeping the name "wonder" for <<3 17 -1 20 -10 -50||.
This
> is clearly much more consistent with what Margo had in mind as a
> {2,3,7} linear temperament using 1029/1024. Margo is not much of a
fan
> of flat fifths, for starters, and the tunings are consistent.
Graham's
> site seems to be unavailable at the moment, but I have no objections
> to "slendric" in place of "supermajor seconds", an ugly name even
if I
> am responsible for it.

Unfortunately, if prime 5 is in there, this is even less like slendro
than "pelogic" is like pelog.

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > [6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7] kleismic
> > > > [10, 9, 7, -9, -17, -9] nonkleismic
> > >
> > > I'm very unenthusiastic about these names.
> >
> > How about some alternatives?
>
> The field of drosophila genetics makes use, in addition to porcupine
> and hedgehog, of the terms armadillo and pangolin. Perhaps these
> could be called into service?

I've heard they give weird names to friutfly genes, such as
"fruitless" for the gene which makes male fruitflies gay (and no, I am
not making that up.) Are these examples?

How about "armadillo" in place of "kleismic", and "pangolin" in place
of "nonkleismic"?

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...>
> > wrote:
> > > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich"
<perlich@a...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > [6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7] kleismic
> > > > > [10, 9, 7, -9, -17, -9] nonkleismic
> > > >
> > > > I'm very unenthusiastic about these names.
> > >
> > > How about some alternatives?
> >
> > The field of drosophila genetics makes use, in addition to
porcupine
> > and hedgehog, of the terms armadillo and pangolin. Perhaps these
> > could be called into service?
>
> I've heard they give weird names to friutfly genes, such as
> "fruitless" for the gene which makes male fruitflies gay (and no, I
am
> not making that up.) Are these examples?

Yes.

> How about "armadillo" in place of "kleismic", and "pangolin" in
place
> of "nonkleismic"?

Fine. Anyone have a problem with this? Only a few days left.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

Paul Erlich wrote:
>>How about "armadillo" in place of "kleismic", and "pangolin" in > > place
> >>of "nonkleismic"?
> > > Fine. Anyone have a problem with this? Only a few days left.

If 5-limit kleismic is "hanson", what about "keenan" for what we've been calling 7-limit kleismic, <<6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7]]? (Larry Hanson's paper implies a "catakleismic" 7-limit mapping, <<6, 5, 22, -6, 18, 37]]: see http://www.anaphoria.com/hanson.PDF, fig. 12, which implies a mapping of [0, 6, 5, 22], while on the other hand Dave Keenan's page at http://dkeenan.com/Music/ChainOfMinor3rds.htm implies a [0, 6, 5, 3] mapping.)

Admittedly, "nonkleismic" isn't a very good name, especially for something that extends to a (theoretically) good 11-limit and even a reasonably good 13-limit version.

<<10, 9, 7, 25, -9, -17, 5, -9, 27, 46]]
<<10, 9, 7, 25, -5, -9, -17, 5, -45, -9, 27, -45, 46, -40, -110]]

So something like that deserves a pretty unique and memorable name, and a pangolin is a pretty unique and memorable sort of animal.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote:
> Paul Erlich wrote:
> >>How about "armadillo" in place of "kleismic", and "pangolin" in
> >
> > place
> >
> >>of "nonkleismic"?
> >
> >
> > Fine. Anyone have a problem with this? Only a few days left.
>
> If 5-limit kleismic is "hanson", what about "keenan" for what we've
been
> calling 7-limit kleismic, <<6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7]]? (Larry Hanson's
> paper implies a "catakleismic" 7-limit mapping, <<6, 5, 22, -6, 18,
> 37]]: see http://www.anaphoria.com/hanson.PDF, fig. 12, which implies a
> mapping of [0, 6, 5, 22], while on the other hand Dave Keenan's page at
> http://dkeenan.com/Music/ChainOfMinor3rds.htm implies
> a [0, 6, 5, 3] mapping.)

Thanks for this! I've been promoting "hanson" as the new name for
catakleismic. I think "keenan" makes sense, though admittedly it isn't
as cute a name as armadillo. Given Dave's views on naming things,
someone had better ask him if he'd allow it first if Paul likes it
enough for the paper.

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

I'll ask Dave.

>(Larry Hanson's
> paper implies a "catakleismic" 7-limit mapping, <<6, 5, 22, -6, 18,
> 37]]: see http://www.anaphoria.com/hanson.PDF, fig. 12, which
implies a
> mapping of [0, 6, 5, 22],

Thanks for pointing this out . . . but the paper indicates that this
was Wilson's idea, not Hanson's. I'm not going to worry about this
right now.

> while on the other hand Dave Keenan's page at
> http://dkeenan.com/Music/ChainOfMinor3rds.htm
implies
> a [0, 6, 5, 3] mapping.)
>
> Admittedly, "nonkleismic" isn't a very good name, especially for
> something that extends to a (theoretically) good 11-limit and even
a
> reasonably good 13-limit version.
>
> <<10, 9, 7, 25, -9, -17, 5, -9, 27, 46]]
> <<10, 9, 7, 25, -5, -9, -17, 5, -45, -9, 27, -45, 46, -40, -110]]
>
> So something like that deserves a pretty unique and memorable name,
and
> a pangolin is a pretty unique and memorable sort of animal.

Well, it's related to an armadillo, so it might be nice to use the
two names for related temperaments. Let's see . . .

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@I...>
wrote:
> > Paul Erlich wrote:
> > >>How about "armadillo" in place of "kleismic", and "pangolin"
in
> > >
> > > place
> > >
> > >>of "nonkleismic"?
> > >
> > >
> > > Fine. Anyone have a problem with this? Only a few days left.
> >
> > If 5-limit kleismic is "hanson", what about "keenan" for what
we've
> been
> > calling 7-limit kleismic, <<6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7]]? (Larry
Hanson's
> > paper implies a "catakleismic" 7-limit mapping, <<6, 5, 22, -6,
18,
> > 37]]: see http://www.anaphoria.com/hanson.PDF, fig. 12, which
implies a
> > mapping of [0, 6, 5, 22], while on the other hand Dave Keenan's
page at
> > http://dkeenan.com/Music/ChainOfMinor3rds.htm
implies
> > a [0, 6, 5, 3] mapping.)
>
> Thanks for this! I've been promoting "hanson" as the new name for
> catakleismic. I think "keenan" makes sense, though admittedly it
isn't
> as cute a name as armadillo. Given Dave's views on naming things,
> someone had better ask him if he'd allow it first if Paul likes it
> enough for the paper.

Dear Herman, Gene and Paul E.,

Thanks for thinking of me here. And thanks especially Gene for
suggesting to ask me.

I know you all think I'm a spoilsport with regard to the naming of
commas and temperaments, but I really don't think eponyms are much
better than the cryptic (or even meaningless) names that I also
object to.

Sure these names are fun (mostly for those who get to make them up),
but they are of very little help to the person trying to break into
this stuff from scratch. They are of no educational assistance apart
from being _a_ name as opposed to no name, except in those few cases
where (a) there is a connection, albeit a cryptic one, between the
name and some memorable property of the temperament, and (b) this
connection is explained along with the giving of the name. "Orwell"
is the only one that comes to mind, with its generator near 19/84
ths of an octave. Although it probably isn't much help for younger
people who haven't heard of the book and it's author.

Some time ago, I was impressed by a note regarding eponyms in the
back of a well-regarded University-level textbook, 'Principles of
Anatomy and Physiology' by Tortora and Grabowski, now in its 10th
edition. I found this a very easy book to read and understand and I
have no background in the field, beyond high school biology and
chemistry.

I just found the same note on the web, so you can read it for
yourselves. It comes immediately after the heading "CHANGES IN
TERMINOLOGY" on this page:
http://www.aw-bc.com/catalog/academic/product/0,1144,0130896705-
PRE,00.html

They instead named parts according to their properties, e.g. their
function or location or appearance etc. It just seems obvious to me
that from an educational point of view this is vastly superior.

So no. I'd prefer you didn't call it "keenan". But perhaps instead
of doing me that honour, you will do me the honour of considering my
wishes regarding how it ought to be named, particularly since that
didn't happen when I begged off "keenan's kleisma" for the same
reason. I'd prefer you left well-enough alone and continued to call
it 7-limit kleismic. The same goes for schismic. Has Graham breed
been consulted about renaming that?

These names have been in use for over a decade and they do relate to
a property of the temperament, namely the comma that vanishes.

Admittedly this isn't my favourite property on which to base a new
name. I prefer to use the generator (and period if this is not a
whole octave, and relative complexity if there is more than one of
interest with the same interval approximated by its generator). By
this reckoning it is simply "minor thirds". But I have a preference
for "kleismic" because it is already well established.

If it needs to be distinguished from other 7-limit extensions of (5-
limit) kleismic which, sadly, you also want to rename eponymically,
then one could use the adjective "simple" the first time it is
mentioned, or simply give the generator prime mapping.

-- Dave Keenan

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

Herman Miller wrote:

> Paul Erlich wrote:
> >>--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> >>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>a pangolin is a pretty unique and memorable sort of animal.
>>
>>
>>Well, it's related to an armadillo, so it might be nice to use the >>two names for related temperaments. Let's see . . .
> > > Similar, but not closely related (armadillos are related to sloths). > Still, it would be nice to use the name "armadillo" for something. It > would be even better if there was something related to the number 9 in > the temperament, since one of the more common kinds of armadillo is a > nine-banded armadillo.

I just realized that nonkleismic is a starling temperament (126/125). So maybe a bird-related name would be better. Myna?

<<3, 5, 9, 1, 6, 7]] is also a starling temperament.

🔗Graham Breed <graham@microtonal.co.uk>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...>
wrote:

> So no. I'd prefer you didn't call it "keenan". But perhaps instead
> of doing me that honour, you will do me the honour of considering
my
> wishes regarding how it ought to be named, particularly since that
> didn't happen when I begged off "keenan's kleisma" for the same
> reason. I'd prefer you left well-enough alone and continued to call
> it 7-limit kleismic. The same goes for schismic. Has Graham breed
> been consulted about renaming that?

The problem is that in both cases there is another 7-limit
temperament with a low badness figure which is much closer to the 5-
limit temperament in tuning, so the names are in a way deceptive.

> These names have been in use for over a decade and they do relate
to
> a property of the temperament, namely the comma that vanishes.

The competing temperaments have the exact same 5-limit comma, and use
same tuning rather than trying to change it.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@I...>
wrote:
> Paul Erlich wrote:
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>[1, -8, -14, -15, -25, -10] septischismic?
> >
> >
> > Continuing on our kick of naming after people, I might call this
> > Garibaldi, since Eduardo Sabat-Garibaldi gave names to 5120/5103
> > ("Beta 5") and 33554432/33480783 ("Beta 2") in his study which
> > yielded the 1/9-schisma, pure-octave version of this temperament.
> > 4000/3969, though, may have escaped his attention (at least
Manuel
> > doesn't list any other "Beta"s, or any name for 4000/3969 at all).
> >
>
> That also fits the trend of animal names, since a garibaldi is a
kind of
> fish (Hypsypops rubicundus). But is anything wrong with
plain "schismic"
> for this one?

The adjustment of it via +53 gives what I once called
counterschismic, but the tuning of that is like 5-limit schismic, so
I'm suggesting it should get the name schismic, and
similarly "catakleismic" the name hanson. This leaves kleismic free
to be a purely 7-limit name, unless we like armadillo better for that.

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@I...>
wrote:
> Paul Erlich wrote:
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>[1, -8, -14, -15, -25, -10] septischismic?
> >
> >
> > Continuing on our kick of naming after people, I might call this
> > Garibaldi, since Eduardo Sabat-Garibaldi gave names to 5120/5103
> > ("Beta 5") and 33554432/33480783 ("Beta 2") in his study which
> > yielded the 1/9-schisma, pure-octave version of this temperament.
> > 4000/3969, though, may have escaped his attention (at least
Manuel
> > doesn't list any other "Beta"s, or any name for 4000/3969 at all).
> >
>
> That also fits the trend of animal names, since a garibaldi is a
kind of
> fish (Hypsypops rubicundus). But is anything wrong with
plain "schismic"
> for this one?

That doesn't tell you it's 7-limit, for one thing. For
another, "schismic" is plain to us, but we've been talking to each
other, and practically only to each other, for years.

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

You know I disagree with virtually all of this -- I'd love to see
your set of systematic names for these 50 temperaments, and then I
might eat my words.

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@I...>
> wrote:
> > > Paul Erlich wrote:
> > > >>How about "armadillo" in place of "kleismic", and "pangolin"
> in
> > > >
> > > > place
> > > >
> > > >>of "nonkleismic"?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fine. Anyone have a problem with this? Only a few days left.
> > >
> > > If 5-limit kleismic is "hanson", what about "keenan" for what
> we've
> > been
> > > calling 7-limit kleismic, <<6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7]]? (Larry
> Hanson's
> > > paper implies a "catakleismic" 7-limit mapping, <<6, 5, 22, -6,
> 18,
> > > 37]]: see http://www.anaphoria.com/hanson.PDF, fig. 12, which
> implies a
> > > mapping of [0, 6, 5, 22], while on the other hand Dave Keenan's
> page at
> > > http://dkeenan.com/Music/ChainOfMinor3rds.htm
> implies
> > > a [0, 6, 5, 3] mapping.)
> >
> > Thanks for this! I've been promoting "hanson" as the new name for
> > catakleismic. I think "keenan" makes sense, though admittedly it
> isn't
> > as cute a name as armadillo. Given Dave's views on naming things,
> > someone had better ask him if he'd allow it first if Paul likes it
> > enough for the paper.
>
> Dear Herman, Gene and Paul E.,
>
> Thanks for thinking of me here. And thanks especially Gene for
> suggesting to ask me.
>
> I know you all think I'm a spoilsport with regard to the naming of
> commas and temperaments, but I really don't think eponyms are much
> better than the cryptic (or even meaningless) names that I also
> object to.
>
> Sure these names are fun (mostly for those who get to make them
up),
> but they are of very little help to the person trying to break into
> this stuff from scratch. They are of no educational assistance
apart
> from being _a_ name as opposed to no name, except in those few
cases
> where (a) there is a connection, albeit a cryptic one, between the
> name and some memorable property of the temperament, and (b) this
> connection is explained along with the giving of the name. "Orwell"
> is the only one that comes to mind, with its generator near 19/84
> ths of an octave. Although it probably isn't much help for younger
> people who haven't heard of the book and it's author.
>
> Some time ago, I was impressed by a note regarding eponyms in the
> back of a well-regarded University-level textbook, 'Principles of
> Anatomy and Physiology' by Tortora and Grabowski, now in its 10th
> edition. I found this a very easy book to read and understand and I
> have no background in the field, beyond high school biology and
> chemistry.
>
> I just found the same note on the web, so you can read it for
> yourselves. It comes immediately after the heading "CHANGES IN
> TERMINOLOGY" on this page:
> http://www.aw-bc.com/catalog/academic/product/0,1144,0130896705-
> PRE,00.html
>
> They instead named parts according to their properties, e.g. their
> function or location or appearance etc. It just seems obvious to me
> that from an educational point of view this is vastly superior.
>
> So no. I'd prefer you didn't call it "keenan". But perhaps instead
> of doing me that honour, you will do me the honour of considering
my
> wishes regarding how it ought to be named, particularly since that
> didn't happen when I begged off "keenan's kleisma" for the same
> reason. I'd prefer you left well-enough alone and continued to call
> it 7-limit kleismic. The same goes for schismic. Has Graham breed
> been consulted about renaming that?
>
> These names have been in use for over a decade and they do relate
to
> a property of the temperament, namely the comma that vanishes.
>
> Admittedly this isn't my favourite property on which to base a new
> name. I prefer to use the generator (and period if this is not a
> whole octave, and relative complexity if there is more than one of
> interest with the same interval approximated by its generator). By
> this reckoning it is simply "minor thirds". But I have a preference
> for "kleismic" because it is already well established.
>
> If it needs to be distinguished from other 7-limit extensions of (5-
> limit) kleismic which, sadly, you also want to rename eponymically,
> then one could use the adjective "simple" the first time it is
> mentioned, or simply give the generator prime mapping.
>
> -- Dave Keenan

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@I...>
wrote:
> Herman Miller wrote:
>
> > Paul Erlich wrote:
> >
> >>--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@I...>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>a pangolin is a pretty unique and memorable sort of animal.
> >>
> >>
> >>Well, it's related to an armadillo, so it might be nice to use
the
> >>two names for related temperaments. Let's see . . .
> >
> >
> > Similar, but not closely related (armadillos are related to
sloths).
> > Still, it would be nice to use the name "armadillo" for
something. It
> > would be even better if there was something related to the number
9 in
> > the temperament, since one of the more common kinds of armadillo
is a
> > nine-banded armadillo.
>
> I just realized that nonkleismic is a starling temperament
(126/125). So
> maybe a bird-related name would be better. Myna?

Sure, unless someone disagrees.

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@aya.yale.edu>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...>
> wrote:
>
> > So no. I'd prefer you didn't call it "keenan". But perhaps
instead
> > of doing me that honour, you will do me the honour of
considering
> my
> > wishes regarding how it ought to be named, particularly since
that
> > didn't happen when I begged off "keenan's kleisma" for the same
> > reason. I'd prefer you left well-enough alone and continued to
call
> > it 7-limit kleismic. The same goes for schismic. Has Graham
breed
> > been consulted about renaming that?
>
> The problem is that in both cases there is another 7-limit
> temperament with a low badness figure which is much closer to the
5-
> limit temperament in tuning, so the names are in a way deceptive.

So, like I said, call one "simple kleismic" and the other "complex
kleismic", or even "simple-7 kleismic" and "complex-7 kleismic".

It doesn't make sense to have a completely unrelated name for the
same temperament at a higher limit.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Dave Keenan <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...>
wrote:
>
> > So, like I said, call one "simple kleismic" and the
other "complex
> > kleismic", or even "simple-7 kleismic" and "complex-7 kleismic".
>
> So would "dominant sevenths" become "simple meantone" and
(septimal)
> meantone become "complex meantone"?
>
> > It doesn't make sense to have a completely unrelated name for
the
> > same temperament at a higher limit.
>
> That's what I'm trying to avoid, by giving the name (as in the
case of
> meantone) to the one keeping the tuning, rather than the least
complex
> (which would be dominant sevenths in this case.)

You have a good point there. No I wouldn't call "dominant sevenths"
any kind of meantone since I don't consider anything with fifths
wider than those of 12-ET to be meantone. But I note that "simple-7
kleismic" does far less violence to the 5-limit ratios of the parent
5-limit temperament than does "dominant sevenths".

Your proposed system does have a precedent in the naming of rivers
where, as you work your way up-river and you come to forks, the
widest one gets to keep the name and the other is referred to as a
tributary. But sometimes it's a tough call. What would correspond to
tributary wideness here? Shouldn't it be some kind of badness
measure (combining error and complexity, rather than just error as
you and Paul seem to be proposing)?

You know me. I like systems. And since you're proposing a system
here, I'll be happy. Meyers-Briggs personality type INTP = "the
architect". :-)

When there is no system to the naming, the name just becomes one
more thing you have to memorise (or look up every time), rather than
an aid to memory.