Naming Convention Suggestion

I have some suggestions for the naming conventions of temperaments, scales, tunings, etc. Some of these conventions are already followed by the majority of theorists around here, so I guess they are the "unwritten rules" of scale-naming. Feedback is appreciated.

-----------------

For Temperaments:
1.) Temperament names are a single word (a proper noun).
2.) To talk about a tuning of a temperament, we simply prefix the temperament name with the tuning.
3.) Any additional information (the number of notes, the mode, etc) is added as a suffix.

Examples:
-Meantone
-TOP Mavila
-1/3-comma Porcupine
-Golden Orwell[13] 7|5 #4

-----------------

For JI Scales:
1.) JI Scale names are at least two words long (usually an adjective and a proper noun).
2.) The first word may be a description of some numerical quality of the scale (e.g. the prime limit).

Examples:
-Enharmonic Genus
-11-limit Tonality Diamond
-3.5.7 Hexany
-Ptolemy-Zarlino Diatonic
-Harmonic Series
-Septimal Heaven

-----------------

For MOS and MODMOS Scales:
1.) MOS scales are named according to the number of large and small steps.
2.) The propriety is added as a prefix, if applicable.
3.) Any additional information (the mode, chromatically-altered notes, etc) is added as a suffix.

Examples:
-5L2s
-Improper 8L3s
-4L3s 5|1 #2

-----------------

For EDOs and Subsets of EDOs:
1.) An EDO is named using a number and an appropriate suffix ("-EDO," "-tone," "-equal," etc).
2.) Any additional information (the name of the subset scale or temperament) is added as a suffix.

Examples:
-5-EDO
-12-tone Diatonic
-11-tone Machine[6]

-----------------

For other Miscellaneous Scales:
1.) For all scales not covered by the above conventions, a descriptive name with at least 2 words is chosen (usually an adjective and a proper noun).
2.) Any additional information is added as a suffix.

Examples:
-Carlos Gamma
-Werckmeister III
-Young's Well Temperament
-Circulating Porcupine

-----------------

Ryan Avella

Yes, I very much agree with this. We've all naturally settled on this and
don't even think about it, so perhaps we should make it official and slap
it on the wiki. I'll throw it on there as the Standard Naming Convention
tomorrow unless someone else beats me to it.

-Mike

On Dec 17, 2012, at 9:04 PM, Ryan Avella <domeofatonement@...> wrote:

I have some suggestions for the naming conventions of temperaments, scales,
tunings, etc. Some of these conventions are already followed by the
majority of theorists around here, so I guess they are the "unwritten
rules" of scale-naming. Feedback is appreciated.

-----------------

For Temperaments:
1.) Temperament names are a single word (a proper noun).
2.) To talk about a tuning of a temperament, we simply prefix the
temperament name with the tuning.
3.) Any additional information (the number of notes, the mode, etc) is
added as a suffix.

Examples:
-Meantone
-TOP Mavila
-1/3-comma Porcupine
-Golden Orwell[13] 7|5 #4

-----------------

For JI Scales:
1.) JI Scale names are at least two words long (usually an adjective and a
proper noun).
2.) The first word may be a description of some numerical quality of the
scale (e.g. the prime limit).

Examples:
-Enharmonic Genus
-11-limit Tonality Diamond
-3.5.7 Hexany
-Ptolemy-Zarlino Diatonic
-Harmonic Series
-Septimal Heaven

-----------------

For MOS and MODMOS Scales:
1.) MOS scales are named according to the number of large and small steps.
2.) The propriety is added as a prefix, if applicable.
3.) Any additional information (the mode, chromatically-altered notes, etc)
is added as a suffix.

Examples:
-5L2s
-Improper 8L3s
-4L3s 5|1 #2

-----------------

For EDOs and Subsets of EDOs:
1.) An EDO is named using a number and an appropriate suffix ("-EDO,"
"-tone," "-equal," etc).
2.) Any additional information (the name of the subset scale or
temperament) is added as a suffix.

Examples:
-5-EDO
-12-tone Diatonic
-11-tone Machine[6]

-----------------

For other Miscellaneous Scales:
1.) For all scales not covered by the above conventions, a descriptive name
with at least 2 words is chosen (usually an adjective and a proper noun).
2.) Any additional information is added as a suffix.

Examples:
-Carlos Gamma
-Werckmeister III
-Young's Well Temperament
-Circulating Porcupine

-----------------

Ryan Avella

I like all of this, but for one detail. Quoting:

"""
For EDOs and Subsets of EDOs:
1.) An EDO is named using a number and an appropriate suffix ("-EDO,"
"-tone," "-equal," etc).
2.) Any additional information (the name of the subset scale or
temperament) is added as a suffix.

Examples:
-5-EDO
-12-tone Diatonic
-11-tone Machine[6]
"""

I'm assuming the use of "-tone" here is a holdover from "n-tone equal
temperament". People do occasionally seem to use "n-TET", though it seems
ambiguous/confused enough in light of various discussions that I personally
avoid it. But in this context it courts extra ambiguity from an
English-grammar perspective. The other conventions you've delineated are
much clearer in this respect. To use the examples above:

-12-tone Diatonic

Is that the standard 7-tone diatonic scale from 12-edo or a 12-tone subset
of 19, or something else? The intention may be obvious to some, but it's
not intuitive for me, and seems potentially confusing.

-11-tone Machine[6]

Similarly, while I'm pretty sure you mean a 6-note subset of 11-edo, using
"11-tone" as a modifier makes it sound (to me) like you're talking about a
scale with 11 notes in it. In my head, anyway, I've always thought of stuff
like this more along the lines of "machine[6] in/from 11-edo", but even so
"11-edo machine[6]" seems less confusing.

I understand that people will use what they want to use and explain if
necessary. So I guess my suggestion here is just to drop the "n-tone"
option from the published convention.

/jc

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Yes, I very much agree with this. We've all naturally settled on this and
> don't even think about it, so perhaps we should make it official and slap
> it on the wiki. I'll throw it on there as the Standard Naming Convention
> tomorrow unless someone else beats me to it.
>
> -Mike
>
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 9:04 PM, Ryan Avella <domeofatonement@...>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I have some suggestions for the naming conventions of temperaments,
> scales, tunings, etc. Some of these conventions are already followed by the
> majority of theorists around here, so I guess they are the "unwritten
> rules" of scale-naming. Feedback is appreciated.
>
> -----------------
>
> For Temperaments:
> 1.) Temperament names are a single word (a proper noun).
> 2.) To talk about a tuning of a temperament, we simply prefix the
> temperament name with the tuning.
> 3.) Any additional information (the number of notes, the mode, etc) is
> added as a suffix.
>
> Examples:
> -Meantone
> -TOP Mavila
> -1/3-comma Porcupine
> -Golden Orwell[13] 7|5 #4
>
> -----------------
>
> For JI Scales:
> 1.) JI Scale names are at least two words long (usually an adjective and a
> proper noun).
> 2.) The first word may be a description of some numerical quality of the
> scale (e.g. the prime limit).
>
> Examples:
> -Enharmonic Genus
> -11-limit Tonality Diamond
> -3.5.7 Hexany
> -Ptolemy-Zarlino Diatonic
> -Harmonic Series
> -Septimal Heaven
>
> -----------------
>
> For MOS and MODMOS Scales:
> 1.) MOS scales are named according to the number of large and small steps.
> 2.) The propriety is added as a prefix, if applicable.
> 3.) Any additional information (the mode, chromatically-altered notes,
> etc) is added as a suffix.
>
> Examples:
> -5L2s
> -Improper 8L3s
> -4L3s 5|1 #2
>
> -----------------
>
> For EDOs and Subsets of EDOs:
> 1.) An EDO is named using a number and an appropriate suffix ("-EDO,"
> "-tone," "-equal," etc).
> 2.) Any additional information (the name of the subset scale or
> temperament) is added as a suffix.
>
> Examples:
> -5-EDO
> -12-tone Diatonic
> -11-tone Machine[6]
>
> -----------------
>
> For other Miscellaneous Scales:
> 1.) For all scales not covered by the above conventions, a descriptive
> name with at least 2 words is chosen (usually an adjective and a proper
> noun).
> 2.) Any additional information is added as a suffix.
>
> Examples:
> -Carlos Gamma
> -Werckmeister III
> -Young's Well Temperament
> -Circulating Porcupine
>
> -----------------
>
> Ryan Avella
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jason Conklin wrote:
So I guess my suggestion here is just to drop the "n-tone"
option from the published convention.

Seconded. I enjoy using "tone" to mean a tempered 9/8 (difference between 3/2 and 4/3) - for example "15edo steps are third-tones whereas 16edo steps are semi-tones". Don't use "tone" for the steps of any EDO.

Also, I note that there are several names of JI scales or tempered scales (not temperaments) that are well-established but don't conform to these. For example "Centaur" (a 12-note scale in 7-limit JI), "Duodene" (a 12-note scale in 5-limit JI), "Marveldene" (the marvel-tempered version of "Duodene"), "Ratwolf" (a 12-tone tempered scale), and so on.

So are you saying you're gonna try to force people to say "7-limit Centaur" instead of just "Centaur"? How do I even say "Ratwolf" if I have to use more than one word? Do I have to say "Gene Ward Smith's Ratwolf" or something?

Keenan

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia wrote:

Yes, I very much agree with this. We've all naturally settled on this and
don't even think about it, so perhaps we should make it official and slap
it on the wiki. I'll throw it on there as the Standard Naming Convention
tomorrow unless someone else beats me to it.

A lot of times we use as names manuelsname, where manuelsname.scl is the name Manuel gave to the scl file in his Scala directory.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan Avella" wrote:

For other Miscellaneous Scales:
1.) For all scales not covered by the above conventions, a descriptive name with at least 2 words is chosen (usually an adjective and a proper noun).
2.) Any additional information is added as a suffix.

Examples:
-Carlos Gamma
-Werckmeister III
-Young's Well Temperament

I assume you meant Miscellaneous Temperaments and not Scales, at least in regards to Werckmeister and Young.

This is all very fine and good for new temperaments, but rather miserable for historic temperaments, for it does nothing to help clear up the utter shambles which is the current state of affairs. Just the two examples given above are more than enough to illustrate the point.

Werckmeister III

What is this? One might be mislead into thinking that this is some sort of historical temperament authored by some guy named Werckmeister who proposed 3 temperaments, and this is the third of those 3. Nothing could be further from the truth, as many of you know - but far more people don't know! 99% of the time this means the modern misinterpretation of the third set of monochord lengths in his 1691 Musikalisches Temperatur (thus the "III"), which is actually his first "rechte" temperament, which is also his first temperament in his 1681 Orgelprobe. But this ubiquitous modern misinterpretation substitutes 1/4 Pythagorean comma for Werckmeister's original 1/4 Syntonic. So why not let this modern fantasy die the death it rightfully deserves and use the opportunity of establishing a correct terminology to simultaneously restore the actual temperament? What to call it then? The main problem is that it is open to interpretation, as so many historical temperaments are (Bendeler, for example). So, if you only want to vaguely refer to it without pinning it down, the possibilities could be:

Werckmeister 1681-I
Werckmeister 1691 Monochord III
Werckmeister 1691 "Rechte I"

If you want to actually pin it down to hard numbers, you would have to call it something like:

Werckmeister/(Your Name Here) 1681 "Rechte I"

...since your idea of how to resolve the schisma is not necessarily gonna be the same as someone else's.

This is of absolutely necessity in regards to Schlick, for example, or the French modified meantones, or Werckmeister's continuo temperament (far more important than his I/III eve was), all of which REQUIRE interpretation, and therefore MUST carry a second author's name any time it is presented as hard values. For if such values are simply presented with only the original author's name, it is a willful falsification of the historical reality. Bendeler is particular tricky because he states that the comma he is dividing is the Syntonic, like Werckmeister, leaving the schisma to disappear in the wash. But if you follow his tuning instructions to the letter, you're much more likely to end up doing a Pythagorean comma division. So it's up to you, but no one solution is true Bendeler.

Young's Well Temperament

This abomination should be eradicated once and for all from all future writings on temperament. What in bluhdy hell is it supposed to be? His real temperament? Doubtful, since almost no one talks about that! More likely, it means the ubiquitous modern misinterpretation of his real temperament, which like "Werckmeister III", confuses the Pythagorean comma for the Syntonic. But it could just as well be that compromise he suggested as being "almost as good as" his real temperament, i.e. that boring 1/6th P comma regular circulating thingee.

The worst aspect of such a terminology, though, is this word "Well". What, pray tell, is a "Well" temperament? It is usually taken to be some sort of circulating thingee, usually assumed to be P. comma based. Some say all the fifths must be narrow. Others say some can be larger than pure, (as with Werckmeister's other "rechte" temperaments, which almost no one ever talks about), it must simply circulate. But circulate how? No bad fifth? No really bad third? This terminology also implies that it has some connection with Bach, which of course, no surviving historical temperament does objectively. Ultimately, the word "Well" is completely empty of any real meaning. It is vapid puffery, designed to lend a temperament an air of authenticity. It is so void of any real content, we may as well substitute it with freely-chosen nonsense gibberish:

Young's Slithytove

or

Young's Dallydingdong

The worst part of this terminology is that it was obviously thought-up by some cretin (I would honestly like to know who was the dim bulb who coined this phrase!) who did not know the difference between and adjective and adverb. In addition to being a linguistic monstrosity, it has no basis in historical literature; the old authors, who knew how to speak proper German, called them Rechte (proper) or Gute (good) temperaments. Any time you utter the words "well temperament", anyone with a well-education... oops, I meant anybody good-educated... cringes.

So let's please just start calling the two temperaments proposed by Young by what they are:

Young's preferred temperament vs. Young's compromise, for example.

Or, if you want to be more exacting:

Young's 3/16th S. comma circulating and Young's 1/6 P. comma circulating

Actually, Young's preferred temperament is a modified meantone, but that's another rant altogether.

Using such terms, we know precisely which temperament you are talking about, and whether you have actually taken the effort to go read what Young himself actually said (which ain't much effort these days) or just regurgitating some modern mumbo-jumbo you've gleaned from the back pages of a Korg tuner user's manual.

And let's don't even talk about the ubiquitous modern two-headed Hydra "Young/Vallotti".

The problem is that all this bad terminology along with the just-as-often-as-not incorrect temperament data to which it is attached has become so entrenched in the modern literature that modern HIPP musicians start using it/them thinking they are doing something historical. Or worse yet, well-meaning (or should I say good-meaning?) scientists relie on these sources for "historical temperament" data, undermining the academic credibility of otherwise possibly-interesting studies in perception and such. I realize that trying to set things aright at this late date is pissing against the wind, but it is an ill wind indeed, and it blows no one any good. I'm gonna keep on pissing, myself...

Ciao,

P

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" wrote:
>Also, I note that there are several names of JI scales or tempered scales (not temperaments)
>that are well-established but don't conform to these. For example "Centaur" (a 12-note
>scale in 7-limit JI), "Duodene" (a 12-note scale in 5-limit JI), "Marveldene" (the marvel
>tempered version of "Duodene"), "Ratwolf" (a 12-tone tempered scale), and so on.
>
>So are you saying you're gonna try to force people to say "7-limit Centaur" instead of just
>"Centaur"? How do I even say "Ratwolf" if I have to use more than one word? Do I have to
>say "Gene Ward Smith's Ratwolf" or something?
>
>Keenan

I think that we should try to "phase out" those names if possible because they are very often confused with temperaments. In fact, that was the reason I suggested temperaments are a single word, while non-temperaments are at least two words. Suppose we were talking about Centaur and Cerberus, for example - to someone not familiar with these names, they might suppose that both are temperaments with a range of valid tunings.

If anything though, this convention is more of a guideline for the future naming of scales so that we don't muck it up anymore than it already is. It is a bit chaotic to let people name things whatever they want, because then we would end up with 1000 different names, each of them being equally meaningless.

Ryan

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:56 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia wrote:
>
> > Yes, I very much agree with this. We've all naturally settled on this and
> > don't even think about it, so perhaps we should make it official and slap
> > it on the wiki. I'll throw it on there as the Standard Naming Convention
> > tomorrow unless someone else beats me to it.
>
> A lot of times we use as names manuelsname, where manuelsname.scl is the
> name Manuel gave to the scl file in his Scala directory.

Feel free to do that if you want, but I'd be surprised if those of us
around here would ever approach such a scale without first analyzing
it in the way that Ryan presents here.

-Mike

Okay, here is a general formula which should work for most scenarios.

[Tuning] + [Temperament] + [#Notes] + [Mode]

[Tuning] can be an optimization method (e.g. TOP), or it can be a generator tuning (e.g. Golden), or even something more abstract (e.g. Adaptive).

[Temperament] is any piece of information that communicates the mapping. This can even include JI, since JI is one of the "trivial temperaments."

[#Notes] doesn't necessarily need to be a number. It can also be something like "Hexany," e.g. in the name "Marvel-tempered Hexany." Or you can get fancy and call things "decatonic," using the proper greek numeral prefixes.

[Mode] is mainly only used for MOS and MODMOS scales. You would use UDP notation (e.g. 5|1 b3) in these situations.

The biggest priority here is to preserve the ordering. Whether or not you choose to include all of these pieces of information is up to you. For instance, I may not include the specific tuning when talking about meantone[5].

Ryan Avella

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Ryan Avella <domeofatonement@...>
wrote:
>
> Okay, here is a general formula which should work for most scenarios.
>
> [Tuning] + [Temperament] + [#Notes] + [Mode]

This might turn out to need a bit of extending for temperaments of
rank > 2. You can likely treat rank>2 temperaments in much the same
way as rank=2 temperaments, but just cram some extra information into
the "mode" part.

Right now it's usually tuning temperament[notes] mode, though was
thinking of switching to tuning temperament-notes mode a while ago.

-Mike

Of course it will be difficult if not impossible to actually "phase out"
every ingrained usage -- and that is fine. I don't think Ryan means to
enforce anything.

But from the newcomer's perspective, I've got to agree with what Ryan says
here -- when I began exploring the field in earnest (about a year and a
half ago) that lack of distinction between, for example, "a piece in
Centaur" vs. "a piece in Porcupine" was perhaps the most stubborn stumbling
block in understanding what an abstract temperament is and isn't, what
counts, how it relates to RMP, etc. It demands some degree of memorization,
and continues to complicate my learning the history better.

There's nothing wrong with people who know and want to use older
"noncompliant" names -- if that's what you're comfortable with. But it's
good to have guidelines, either so that you/someone can explain how a scale
or tuning under discussion relates to them (as Mike suggests, people will
probably be looking at it in these terms anyway) or so you can simply say
"so-and-so is an exception to that rule" -- a statement like that would
probably have helped me a few times.

On the other hand, I might avoid efforts to systematically work through
"noncompliant" stuff to generate shiny new names (not that anyone suggested
this). Unless it comes up in active discussion or use, it may be best to
let sleeping dogs lie!

/jc

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Ryan Avella <domeofatonement@...>wrote:

> **
>
> I think that we should try to "phase out" those names if possible because
> they are very often confused with temperaments. In fact, that was the
> reason I suggested temperaments are a single word, while non-temperaments
> are at least two words. Suppose we were talking about Centaur and Cerberus,
> for example - to someone not familiar with these names, they might suppose
> that both are temperaments with a range of valid tunings.
>
> If anything though, this convention is more of a guideline for the future
> naming of scales so that we don't muck it up anymore than it already is. It
> is a bit chaotic to let people name things whatever they want, because then
> we would end up with 1000 different names, each of them being equally
> meaningless.
>
> Ryan
>

Hi, I'll wade in here as this is a perennial subject.

I'm a chemist besides a microtonalist and as a chemist I have to deal with
trivial as well as systematic naming for chemical compounds as well as the
formula itself. Carl Lumma and myself have suggested that in a similar way
tunings can be named and to further borrow from chemistry, indexed exist
link the trivial to systematic names and formulas.

For instance, acetic acid, ethanoic acid, methanecarboxylic acid and
CH3COOH all indicate the same chemical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetic_acid

This method can be applied to tuning nomenclature. The important part of
the puzzle is coming up with a systematic naming convention and then the
index that will guide those new to the discipline to the correct
information.

With respect,

Chris Vaisvil

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan Avella" <domeofatonement@...> wrote:

> I think that we should try to "phase out" those names if possible because they are very often confused with temperaments. In fact, that was the reason I suggested temperaments are a single word, while non-temperaments are at least two words. Suppose we were talking about Centaur and Cerberus, for example - to someone not familiar with these names, they might suppose that both are temperaments with a range of valid tunings.

I've used the system where temperaments are lower case and scales upper case.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan Avella" <domeofatonement@...> wrote:

> [Tuning] can be an optimization method (e.g. TOP), or it can be a generator tuning (e.g. Golden), or even something more abstract (e.g. Adaptive).
>
> [Temperament] is any piece of information that communicates the mapping. This can even include JI, since JI is one of the "trivial temperaments."

How would you do a lesfip scale?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jason Conklin <jason.conklin@...> wrote:

> But from the newcomer's perspective, I've got to agree with what Ryan says
> here -- when I began exploring the field in earnest (about a year and a
> half ago) that lack of distinction between, for example, "a piece in
> Centaur" vs. "a piece in Porcupine" was perhaps the most stubborn stumbling
> block in understanding what an abstract temperament is and isn't...

Does "a piece in Centaur" vs "a piece in porcupine" help?

> Does "a piece in Centaur" vs "a piece in porcupine" help?

Not for me. I understand the differences, but early on the idea of an
abstract temperament was hard to get straight when people were talking
about "porcupine" as if it were identical with 22, or "meantone" as if it
were identical with 31 -- fortunately, a fairly rare occurrence. The
capitals-vs.-lowercase convention wouldn't have been particularly helpful,
especially considering the fact that many long-timers would probably forget
about it in the heat of discussion.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:12 PM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...
> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Does "a piece in Centaur" vs "a piece in porcupine" help?
>
>
I suppose it could, but it may raise other consistency issues. I've
wondered in the past if anyone had ever mentioned the use of lower case for
temperament names as a convention. Come to think of it, with the exception
of my email above, I think I've only ever used lower case for temperament
names, and I ~think~ I prefer it that way. That way, treating scale names
as proper nouns highlights their specificity -- while highlighting the
converse for a temperament, an infinite set of tunings.

But it begs the question: Is it "machine temperament", but "Machine[6]"? Or
"machine[6]" but "11-edo Machine[6]"? These distinctions seem weird to me,
and I don't think they've ever been in common usage.

Ultimately, though, capitalization only helps if it is done fairly
consistently, and (I know from years of professional experience) people's
use of the shift key is hopelessly unpredictable.

In any case, I still think the word-order recommendations in Ryan's
original email are good, and will do more for general understanding and
pedagogy -- whatever capitalization style is used.

Only semi-related, but I think I prefer the C-like index style for scales
(machine[6] as opposed to machine-6) ... but they're pretty much
interchangeable in my head.

/jc

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan Avella" <domeofatonement@> wrote:
>
> > [Tuning] can be an optimization method (e.g. TOP), or it can be a generator tuning (e.g. Golden), or even something more abstract (e.g. Adaptive).
> >
> > [Temperament] is any piece of information that communicates the mapping. This can even include JI, since JI is one of the "trivial temperaments."
>
> How would you do a lesfip scale?
>

Lesfip is an interesting case, because it doesn't fit into the [Tuning] category in the strictest sense. So I'd say it is a piece of information that should be added as a suffix to the main proper noun … e.g. Marvel Lesfip.

Ryan

Jason Conklin <jason.conklin@...> wrote:

> Ultimately, though, capitalization only helps if it is
> done fairly consistently, and (I know from years of
> professional experience) people's use of the shift key is
> hopelessly unpredictable.

I capitalized temperament names in my "Tripod Notation
Extended" paper because it was getting confusing to talk
about "magic this" and "miracle that". But with names
based on proper names, especially named after people you
might talk about in the same context, the argument goes the
other way.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jason Conklin <jason.conklin@...> wrote:

> But it begs the question: Is it "machine temperament", but "Machine[6]"?

Yes.
Or
> "machine[6]" but "11-edo Machine[6]"?

No.

> Ultimately, though, capitalization only helps if it is done fairly
> consistently, and (I know from years of professional experience) people's
> use of the shift key is hopelessly unpredictable.

They are used in this way most of the time in the Xenwiki.