Regular temperament

I gave my defintion because people, including but me hardly restricted
only to me, were calling things like schismic or miralce or even
marvel "regular". This raises the question of whether this is, in fact
correct usage. It seems to me it accords well enough with how Barbour
used the word; I haven't read Bosanquet.

Does anyone other than Paul have an objection to this use of the word?
Would Paul be willing to tell me what his objection is? If we aren't
allowed to call kleismic a regular temperament, what are we allowed to
call it, and who decides?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> I gave my defintion because people, including but me hardly
restricted
> only to me, were calling things like schismic or miralce or even
> marvel "regular". This raises the question of whether this is, in
fact
> correct usage. It seems to me it accords well enough with how
Barbour
> used the word; I haven't read Bosanquet.

Barbour uses the word for tunings with 11 identical *fifths*!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

It seems to me it accords well enough with how
> Barbour
> > used the word; I haven't read Bosanquet.
>
> Barbour uses the word for tunings with 11 identical *fifths*!

Which is consistent with my definition. Are you suggesting the word
can be applied to meantone and schismic tunings, and no others?
That's crazy, and an invitation to massive confusion. What possible
point is there in it?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> It seems to me it accords well enough with how
> > Barbour
> > > used the word; I haven't read Bosanquet.
> >
> > Barbour uses the word for tunings with 11 identical *fifths*!
>
> Which is consistent with my definition.

Do Kleismic or Marvel have 11 identical fifths?

> Are you suggesting the word
> can be applied to meantone and schismic tunings, and no others?

The generator definitely has to be a fifth, yes.

> That's crazy,

Yes, the entire field is one giant loony bin.

> and an invitation to massive confusion.

How so?

> What possible
> point is there in it?

Consistency with the existing literature seems more in line with the
Wiki guidelines than the alternative.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:

> The generator definitely has to be a fifth, yes.

Why? Why must present usage be tossed and everything reverted to
usage 50 years in the past, if Barbour ever really intended it to be
so rigid, which I doubt?

> Consistency with the existing literature seems more in line with
the
> Wiki guidelines than the alternative.

My definition *is* consistent with existing literature. Rather than
complain about my codification of contemporary usage, why not add
something about Barbour or Bosanquet?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> > The generator definitely has to be a fifth, yes.
>
> Why? Why must present usage be tossed and everything reverted to
> usage 50 years in the past,

I already gave up fighting you.

> if Barbour ever really intended it to be
> so rigid, which I doubt?

I don't share your doubt, not even one micro-iota of it.

> > Consistency with the existing literature seems more in line with
> the
> > Wiki guidelines than the alternative.
>
> My definition *is* consistent with existing literature.

What counts as existing literature and what counts as "original" and
therefore inappropriate material?

> Rather than
> complain about my codification of contemporary usage, why not add
> something about Barbour or Bosanquet?

Sure. Do you have Barbour's book?