Googling regular temperament

I did some of this, and found no instances in which the phrase was
used in a way inconsistent with the definition I gave. I also have a
cite from Joe's dictionary:

"interval of periodicity" = "periodic interval" = "period" is that
generator of a regular temperament (whether linear [1-dimensional],
planar [2-dimensional], or n-dimensional) which generates the interval
of equivalence all by itself. This means that the period is either
equal to the interval of equivalence or fits into the interval of
equivalence a whole number of times.

[from Dave Keenan, Yahoo tuning-math message

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> I did some of this, and found no instances in which the phrase was
> used in a way inconsistent with the definition I gave. I also have a
> cite from Joe's dictionary:
>
> "interval of periodicity" = "periodic interval" = "period" is that
> generator of a regular temperament (whether linear [1-dimensional],
> planar [2-dimensional], or n-dimensional) which generates the
interval
> of equivalence all by itself. This means that the period is either
> equal to the interval of equivalence or fits into the interval of
> equivalence a whole number of times.
>
> [from Dave Keenan, Yahoo tuning-math message

This usage of "regular temperament" can be considered "original,
unpublished work" on the part of this small community over the past
few years. I should have insisted on "uniform" way back when.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
[from Dave Keenan, Yahoo tuning-math message

> This usage of "regular temperament" can be considered "original,
> unpublished work" on the part of this small community over the past
> few years.

Usage is usage. The people who talk seriously about tuning--and this
list is a very important portion of that group--define it.

>I should have insisted on "uniform" way back when.

The idea that a neologism needed to be coined when a perfectly
acceptable word was already in use strikes me as absurd. In any case,
as you yourself said, meanings evolve and are defined by usage. You
are refuted by your own argument, which you don't seem to accept,
preferring to believe that meanings are fixed in concrete, have
nothing to do with how a word is being used *now*, and should by no
means respect logic.

To what would *your* definition apply? Only to linear temperaments?
Only to linear temperaments whose generator was a fifth? Only to
meantone? Only to a DES (distributionally equal scale, ie MOS) of
meantone? Only for the 12 note DES of meantone? Only for a 12 note
DES of meatone already listed in Barbours book? Who appointed you
judge and jury of how people are allowed to use the word?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
> [from Dave Keenan, Yahoo tuning-math message
>
> > This usage of "regular temperament" can be considered "original,
> > unpublished work" on the part of this small community over the
past
> > few years.
>
> Usage is usage. The people who talk seriously about tuning--and
this
> list is a very important portion of that group--define it.
>
> >I should have insisted on "uniform" way back when.
>
> The idea that a neologism needed to be coined when a perfectly
> acceptable word was already in use strikes me as absurd. In any
case,
> as you yourself said, meanings evolve and are defined by usage. You
> are refuted by your own argument, which you don't seem to accept,
> preferring to believe that meanings are fixed in concrete, have
> nothing to do with how a word is being used *now*, and should by no
> means respect logic.

I just think you may be solipsistically inflating the importance of
our little cadre within the english-speaking tuning world.

> To what would *your* definition apply? Only to linear temperaments?
> Only to linear temperaments whose generator was a fifth? Only to
> meantone? Only to a DES (distributionally equal scale, ie MOS) of
> meantone? Only for the 12 note DES of meantone? Only for a 12 note
> DES of meatone already listed in Barbours book? Who appointed you
> judge and jury of how people are allowed to use the word?

No one. I'll step off my soapbox now.

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

> I just think you may be solipsistically inflating the importance of
> our little cadre within the english-speaking tuning world.

"Our litte cadre" is *by far* the most sophisticated discussion of
tuning theory going on in the world today. You are a significant
researcher in this very specialzied field and don't even know it.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> > I just think you may be solipsistically inflating the importance
of
> > our little cadre within the english-speaking tuning world.
>
> "Our litte cadre" is *by far* the most sophisticated discussion of
> tuning theory going on in the world today.

How can you be so sure? You're fully aware of what 6 billion people
are thinking about and discussing in hundreds of different languages?
How about merely what's published -- what percentage of the big
bibliography are you familiar with?

http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/bib.html

> You are a significant
> researcher in this very specialzied field and don't even know it.

I'm clearly obsessed with it, and humans have given me the impression
I have some relatively strong talents, but I will *always* operate
under the assumption that there is someone I don't know of with more
talent and knowledge out there. If disparate people from all over the
world are going to get together to put together a web resource on
something, this seems to me like the only assumption that will lead
to positive results. If you don't enter the enterprise with a
generous, cooperative spirit, you'll quickly be suppressed by a swarm
of even more solipsistic pundits in this field, a few of whom have
been named by name around here; more of whom haven't.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
> [from Dave Keenan, Yahoo tuning-math message
>
> > This usage of "regular temperament" can be considered "original,
> > unpublished work" on the part of this small community over the past
> > few years.
>
> Usage is usage. The people who talk seriously about tuning--and this
> list is a very important portion of that group--define it.
>
> >I should have insisted on "uniform" way back when.
>
> The idea that a neologism needed to be coined when a perfectly
> acceptable word was already in use strikes me as absurd. In any case,
> as you yourself said, meanings evolve and are defined by usage. You
> are refuted by your own argument, which you don't seem to accept,
> preferring to believe that meanings are fixed in concrete, have
> nothing to do with how a word is being used *now*, and should by no
> means respect logic.
>
> To what would *your* definition apply? Only to linear temperaments?
> Only to linear temperaments whose generator was a fifth? Only to
> meantone? Only to a DES (distributionally equal scale, ie MOS) of
> meantone? Only for the 12 note DES of meantone? Only for a 12 note
> DES of meatone already listed in Barbours book? Who appointed you
> judge and jury of how people are allowed to use the word?

Gene,

This looks like you are once again imputing offensive beliefs and
motives to someone when this is not warranted by what they actually
wrote. But hey, we're all guilty of this from time to time. Perhaps we
should all try harder to assume the best possible reading of other
people's posts.

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

> How can you be so sure? You're fully aware of what 6 billion people
> are thinking about and discussing in hundreds of different
languages?

Six billion people are not talking about tuning theory--trust me. If
you knew of something significant going on, you would have mentioned
it here, and ditto for many others on this list. You don't, so you
didn't.

> How about merely what's published -- what percentage of the big
> bibliography are you familiar with?
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/bib.html

The vast majority of stuff on that list is by people long dead. I see
things of interest by people now alive, many of whom post here or are
associated to people who do. Why don't you supply some specific
examples of whatever it is you are trying to produce examples for,
and explain the relevance?

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

> This looks like you are once again imputing offensive beliefs and
> motives to someone when this is not warranted by what they actually
> wrote.

I don't know why you think that--Paul has in fact said that his
position is that "regular temperament" entails octave and fifths. I
don't think saying that some people (including you) use the word
differently and that meaning can and does evolve counts as offensive.
.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:
>
> > This looks like you are once again imputing offensive beliefs and
> > motives to someone when this is not warranted by what they actually
> > wrote.
>
> I don't know why you think that--Paul has in fact said that his
> position is that "regular temperament" entails octave and fifths. I
> don't think saying that some people (including you) use the word
> differently and that meaning can and does evolve counts as offensive.
> .

No it certainly does not. I totally agree with you.

Oops. Now I see that there are at least two possible readings of what
I wrote above, and you have taken the worst one. :-)

I don't mean that you might be offensively imputing beliefs, I mean
you might be imputing beliefs which you find offensive, but which
don't exist, such as that Paul sees himself as judge and jury.

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

> I don't mean that you might be offensively imputing beliefs, I mean
> you might be imputing beliefs which you find offensive, but which
> don't exist, such as that Paul sees himself as judge and jury.

Ah. Well, I'm not sure he does. Sometimes he seems to be objecting
strongly to current (on these groups, at least) usages of "regular
temperament" or "linear temperament", and sometimes it seems he backs
away from a strenuous objection.