Re: vum

Hi there,

sorry, the notation periodicity block
by itself is enough to generate the note
names and you don't need to use any
other block.

Define the seven tone scale using
1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 16/9 2/1
as your notation periodicity block
scale. Generate it any way you please
e.g. using 81/80 and 25/24

Then set one of its unison vectors
as the chromatic unison vector.
This then gives the sharps and flats.

Notes equivalent under the other
unison vector are given the same note
name.

So 9/8 and 10/9 are both notated as
in the same way, e.g. as D in the notation
system based on 1/1 = C.

Similarly 5/4 and 81/64 are both notated
as E.

6/5 and 5/4 however are notated using
an accidental as they differ by 25/24
which is the chromatic unison vector.
So therefore 6/5 is notated as Eb
rather than E.

The notation system can then be used
for any other periodicity block,
or periodicity strip, e.g. for
meantones etc and scales with
any number of notes though
if the periodicity block
included e.g. both 9/8 and
10/9, both would be notated as
D and one would need a finer
notation system to distinguish
them.

Robert

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> sorry, the notation periodicity block
> by itself is enough to generate the note
> names and you don't need to use any
> other block.
>
> Define the seven tone scale using
> 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 16/9 2/1
> as your notation periodicity block
> scale. Generate it any way you please
> e.g. using 81/80 and 25/24
>
> Then set one of its unison vectors
> as the chromatic unison vector.
> This then gives the sharps and flats.

You propose to use 81/80 to notate sharps and flats?

Here's an example of where I think you may be headed: we can write
anything in the 5-limit as a product of 25/24, 128/125, and 81/80.
25/24 is a step of 12-et, and 0 in 7 and 3, 128/125 is a step of 7-et,
and 0 in 12 and 3, and 81/80 is as step of 3, and 0 in 12 and 7.
Leaving off the three gives us a 12 and 7 system, like Eytan Agmon,
but it involves us in leaving off 81/80--ie, it carries an implication
of meantone--which he rejects, thinking tuning can be defined in terms
of tuning maps without any mappings from JI in any limit. So one
interval raised to the degrees of 12 equal, times another raised to
the degrees of 7-equal, is a way of defining meantone.

However, we don't actually need the 5-limit for notation; we have a
system deriving from Pythagorean intonation and 3-limit JI, which
mutated into meantone and then into 12-equal. 2187/2048, the apotome,
is the chromatic hoodoo doodad which is relevent here, 7-et maps it to
0 and 12-et to 1, whereas 12-et maps the Pythagorean comma to 0 and
7-et to -1. Any 3-limit interval can be written as a product of
Pythagoran commas and apotomes, using the 7 and 12 vals to determine
the exponents. If P is the Pythagorean comma and A the apotome, then
2 is A^12/P^7, and 3/2 is A^7/P^4. We can take a system of seven
nominals, based on a chain of fifths, octave equivalence, and apotome
flats and sharps, and notate anything in the 3-limit, since we need
concern ourselves with the exponent of P only mod 7, due to the fact
that P^7 = A^12/2. If now we say 5 ~ (3/2)^4, we can notate 5 (81/80
is a en/xen/harmonic bridge) and our system of sharps and flats,
originally a way of notating anything in 3-limit JI, becomes a method
of notating anything in 5-limit meantone.

So if anything is "the" chromatic "unison vector" for our system of
notation, it's the apotome.

>sorry, the notation periodicity block
>by itself is enough to generate the note
>names and you don't need to use any
>other block.
>
>Define the seven tone scale using
>1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 16/9 2/1
>as your notation periodicity block
>scale. Generate it any way you please
>e.g. using 81/80 and 25/24
>
>Then set one of its unison vectors
>as the chromatic unison vector.
>This then gives the sharps and flats.
>
>Notes equivalent under the other
>unison vector are given the same note
>name.
>
>So 9/8 and 10/9 are both notated as
>in the same way, e.g. as D in the notation
>system based on 1/1 = C.
>
>Similarly 5/4 and 81/64 are both notated
>as E.
>
>6/5 and 5/4 however are notated using
>an accidental as they differ by 25/24
>which is the chromatic unison vector.
>So therefore 6/5 is notated as Eb
>rather than E.
>
>The notation system can then be used
>for any other periodicity block,
>or periodicity strip, e.g. for
>meantones etc and scales with
>any number of notes though
>if the periodicity block
>included e.g. both 9/8 and
>10/9, both would be notated as
>D and one would need a finer
>notation system to distinguish
>them.

Now this looks just like The Forms Of Tonality.

-Carl

>So if anything is "the" chromatic "unison vector" for our system of
>notation, it's the apotome.

That's one way of looking at it, but since Western music clearly
implies 5-limit harmony, it isn't always the best way.

-Carl

Hi Gene,

> sorry, the notation periodicity block
> by itself is enough to generate the note
> names and you don't need to use any
> other block.
>
> Define the seven tone scale using
> 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 16/9 2/1
> as your notation periodicity block
> scale. Generate it any way you please
> e.g. using 81/80 and 25/24
>
> Then set one of its unison vectors
> as the chromatic unison vector.
> This then gives the sharps and flats.

You propose to use 81/80 to notate sharps and flats?

No, use 25/24 for the sharps and flats. Notes that are an
81/80 apart are the same nominal. This is how it is done
in Forms of Tonality which Paul has just given me the url for:

http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/erlich-tFoT.pdf

I think the diagram there makes it all clear,
- the notation periodicity block gives a note name for
every lattice point and a sharp or flat for it.

The commatic unison vector establishes nominal equivalence.
The chromatic unison vector gives the sharps and flats.

It is all clearly expressed in the forms of tonality
paper, and easy to generalise to any number of dimensions
and any number of chromatic unison vectors.

The nominal of a note can be defined using
any one to one assighment of letters to
scale degrees of the notation scale, and all notes
equivalent to a scale degree using 81/80s will also have
the same nominal and accidental. Ones that are equivalent
using 25/24s have the same nominal but vary in the
numbers of accidentals. A system of accidentals is
any one one assignment from the negative and postive
integers to a set of symbols, e.g. -2 -1 0 1 2 3
mapped to bb b () # ## ### or you can use X for ##
if you want, doesn't matter any one one assignment.

To calculate the note name if you are given an arbitrary point
in the lattice, just label all points in the lattice
working outward from the notation scale,
labelling every note with its
nominal and accidental until you reach the note
that you wish to notate. That's how Paul
does it in the paper.

However, maybe you want to find an easy way to work
backwards from a note to its notation given
some arbitrary ratio involving large exponents.

You can use your vals to find the scale degree for its nearest
nominal. So that part is easy - finding the nominals.

The number of sharps and flats
is the minimum number of uses of the chromatic unison
vector needed along any path joining the
note and a representative nominal where the path
can use any combination of the chromatic unison
vector and the commatic unison vector.

I'm not sure how one could calculate that
in a neat way using vectors - the idea of using
a dot product won't work immediately as the two unison
vectors aren't at right angles to each
other. However one geometric type solution would be to
rescale the 3 and 5 axes of the
lattice in such a way as to make it so that the
81/80 and 25/24 are at right angles to
each other - then use the dot product
to find the number of 25/24s along the
desired path.

But maybe there is an easier way
using some algebraic construction
- that's your speciality :-).

To respond to one of your other points:

> The main thing I want is a word which uses neither "unison" nor
> "vector", and which certainly does not claim, very confusingly, that
we are talking about a unison vector.

Obviously this idea can't have been conveyed clearly yet.

The chromatic unison vector _is_ a unison vector
of the notation periodicity block - 25/24
is a unison vector for

1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 16/9 2/1

Have another look at Paul's diagram
to see how it works.

Is it clear now?

Robert

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:

> The chromatic unison vector _is_ a unison vector
> of the notation periodicity block - 25/24
> is a unison vector for
>
> 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 16/9 2/1
>
> Have another look at Paul's diagram
> to see how it works.
>
> Is it clear now?

It would be way, way clearer if you simply said it is a comma/vum for
7-et.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:

> To calculate the note name if you are given an arbitrary point
> in the lattice, just label all points in the lattice
> working outward from the notation scale,
> labelling every note with its
> nominal and accidental until you reach the note
> that you wish to notate. That's how Paul
> does it in the paper.

That seems like a huge amount of wasted effort. Why not simply take
the meantone generator mapping, <0 1 4|, add 1, divide by 7 and take
the floor? That way you get a reduced set mod 7 of -1 through 5,
corresponding to F through B, which get no accidental, which is what
we want.

Hi Gene,

I just meant that the method of labelling each note in turn shows
that every lattice point has a unique nominal and accidental
and the diagram Paul gives in his forms of tonality
paper shows how the construction proceeds and so establishes
that - do you know the diagram I mean? If by chance you haven't
seen it yet, then take a look as it makes everything clear.

Such a construction to show that it works doesn't have to
be computationally practical for finding the number of accidentals for
remote points in the lattice.

Finding the nominal such as C D E F G A B
is easy as you just need to use the val for the
notation periodicity block to find the scale
degree.

Finding the number of accidentals, if you are
presented with an arbitrary lattice point such
as [15, 100, -232> or whatever is harder
though. You can find the nominal for it using
the val, but then you need to find the number
of 25/24s along any path joining one to the
other.

My first idea was to rescale the 3 and 5
vectors in the lattice in such a way
that the 81/80 and 25/24 vectors are at
right angles to each other. If you do that
then you can simply use the dot product
of the vector for 25/24, vis
[-3 -1, 2>
with the difference between the
lattice point and its representative
nominal in the notation periodicity
block scale.

However, I just realised that a far
easier way would be simply to write it out
algebraically and solve it using:

x*[-3 -1, 2> + y*[-4 4, 1>
= [m1 m2, m3>
where [m1 m2, m3> is the vector from the
lattice point to its nominal.

We want x, the number of 25/24s between
the vector and its nominal, so:

-3x -4y = m1
-x + 4y = m2
(2x + y = m3

so
-4x = m1 + m2

So you just add the first two numbers and divide by 4.

Here is a fully worked example:

We want to know what note name notation to use for
[15, 100, -232>
with the periodicity block scale
1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 15/8 2/1
commatic unison vector 81/80
chromatic unison vector 25/24
and the note name convention
that C = 1/1 with the rest
following the usual system of
diatonic white note nominals.

using the val for 7-et:
[7 11, 16>
applied to our vector point
[15, 100, -232>

so its scale degree is
7*15 + 100*11 -232*16
= 2507
so modulo 7 it is
2507 - 358*7 = 1
so it is a D
(allowing for syntonic comma drift)

The D in our notation periodicity block is
9/8 = [-3 2 0>

So to find the number of accidentals, we now need
to take the difference:
[15, 100, -232>
-
[-3 2 0>
=
[18 98, -232>

Then using our result that you just need to
sum the 2 and 3 exponents in the difference
vector and divide the sum by 4 to get the
number of flats (because it is a negative
number), the number of flats is
(18 + 98)/4
= 29

So our lattice point is
Dbbbbb (29 flats).

Well that is hard to check, but just to check the method
works, try something easier, say 45/32
which we know is an F# / Gb

45/32 = 2^-5*3^2*5 = [-5 2, 1>
using the val for 7-et:
[7 11, 16>
its scale degree is
-5*7 + 2*11 + 16
= -35 + 22 + 16 = 3
which makes it an F
[2 -1,0>
then to find the accidental, subtract
[-5 2, 1>
-
[2 -1,0>
=
[-7 3, 1>
and the accidental
then is (-7+3)/4 = -1,
-1 flats, i.e. one sharp,
so it is F# as expected.

So in that way one can quickly
calculate the note name for any note
in the lattice allowing for syntonic
comma drift by the syntonic comma as
the commatic unison vector, and using 25/24 as the
chromatic unison vector.

I'll c.c. this to tuning-jargon so we can
follow it up further there if necessary
as it is really about the definition of
commatic and chromatic unison vectors.

Robert

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...>
wrote:

> Hi Gene,
>
> I just meant that the method of labelling each note in turn shows
> that every lattice point has a unique nominal and accidental
> and the diagram Paul gives in his forms of tonality
> paper shows how the construction proceeds and so establishes
> that - do you know the diagram I mean? If by chance you haven't
> seen it yet, then take a look as it makes everything clear.

for the sake of those who for some reason don't want
to download and/or read Paul's excellent paper,
i've put a screen-shot of the diagram which i believe
is the one Robert is referring to, at tuning-files:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.
com/group/tuning_files/files/Erlich/erlich-tFoT-figure6.jpg

OR

http://tinyurl.com/575e9

-monz

since there's been so much negative reaction to
"um" and "vum", Paul and i decided to scrap it
and go with "promo" (for _pro_jective _mo_nzo).

the "vanishing" aspect doesn't seem to be as important
to differentiate as the "projective" aspect, i.e.,
that a single interval notated in monzo form can
represent all of its multiples.

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/promo.htm

if it does still seem that the vanishing aspect
should be acknowledged in a separate term, the
obvious idea is "vapromo" ... but other ideas are
certainly welcome. reply on tuning-jargon.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...> wrote:
> Hi Gene,
>
> I just meant that the method of labelling each note in turn shows
> that every lattice point has a unique nominal and accidental
> and the diagram Paul gives in his forms of tonality
> paper shows how the construction proceeds and so establishes
> that - do you know the diagram I mean? If by chance you haven't
> seen it yet, then take a look as it makes everything clear.

The fact that it works in the 5 or higher limits follows from the fact
that it works in the 3-limit and the choice of meantone as a
temperament, so I don't see the point of any of this.

> Finding the number of accidentals, if you are
> presented with an arbitrary lattice point such
> as [15, 100, -232> or whatever is harder
> though. You can find the nominal for it using
> the val, but then you need to find the number
> of 25/24s along any path joining one to the
> other.

What is wrong with the method I mentioned? Applying the meantone val
to the above gives <0 1 4|15 100 -232> = -828; adding one, dividing by
7 and taking the floor gives -119, so I'd give it 119 flats. If you
apply the 7-et val, you get <7 11 16|15 100 -232> = -2507, reducing
mod 7 gives 6, a B; so the note is B followed by 119 flats.

> We want to know what note name notation to use for
> [15, 100, -232>
> with the periodicity block scale
> 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 8/5 15/8 2/1
> commatic unison vector 81/80
> chromatic unison vector 25/24
> and the note name convention
> that C = 1/1 with the rest
> following the usual system of
> diatonic white note nominals.

I don't think we do. What we want is what the note name is in
meantone, surely? From your desciption these should be the same, but
if they are different than you are confusing the issue, and if they
are not, you are still confusing the issue by dragging in extraneous
considerations about periodicity blocks. What's the point?

> using the val for 7-et:
> [7 11, 16>
> applied to our vector point
> [15, 100, -232>
>
> so its scale degree is
> 7*15 + 100*11 -232*16
> = 2507

Dropped a sign.

> so modulo 7 it is
> 2507 - 358*7 = 1
> so it is a D
> (allowing for syntonic comma drift)
>
> The D in our notation periodicity block is
> 9/8 = [-3 2 0>
>
> So to find the number of accidentals, we now need
> to take the difference:
> [15, 100, -232>
> -
> [-3 2 0>
> =
> [18 98, -232>
>
> Then using our result that you just need to
> sum the 2 and 3 exponents in the difference
> vector and divide the sum by 4 to get the
> number of flats (because it is a negative
> number), the number of flats is
> (18 + 98)/4
> = 29
>
> So our lattice point is
> Dbbbbb (29 flats).

I think we should have agreed on an answer, and we don't seem to.

> I'll c.c. this to tuning-jargon so we can
> follow it up further there if necessary
> as it is really about the definition of
> commatic and chromatic unison vectors.

I was hoping not to have to subscribe to tuning-jargon. Why not follow
up to tuning math?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> since there's been so much negative reaction to
> "um" and "vum", Paul and i decided to scrap it
> and go with "promo" (for _pro_jective _mo_nzo).

Does this mean provo is a projective val? Do we get to have multivals
and multimonozs, and are these biprovos or probizos?

Hi there,

Sorry, that calculation uses the 2 exponent but
if one stops and thinks about it,the 2 exponent
should be ignored for a 2D 5 limit lattice.

Corrected calculation method over in
tuning-jargon. Method uses the same
idea basically, but ignoring the 2 exponent
so you end up with a different formula
- will leave the details to the tuning-jargon
post.

Robert

Hi Gene,

With my corrected calculation,

[* 100, -232>
-
15/8 = [* 1, 1>
=
[* 99 -233>

Then to find the number of flats or sharps
you use (99 - 4*233)/7

= 119

which now agrees with your calculation.

I get the formula using:

x*[* -1, 2> + y*[* 4, -1>
= [* b, c>

where [* b, c> is the vector from the
nominal to the lattice point.

We want x, the number of 25/24s between
the vector and its nominal, so:

-x + 4y = b
2x - y = c

so
7x = b + 4c

x = (b + 4 c)/7

Glad the two methods agree.
I can't say I follow yours
yet - as I don't understand
all the concepts used yet
in your short one paragraph
exposition and maybe I've
got enough to think about already
without needing to follow all
those ideas up quite yet.
Doubtless will seem simple
when I look back at it at some
later date.

Anyway, I think at least this
approach requires fewer
concepts for a Newbie
to understand how it works,
just the idea of a notation periodicity
block and two unison vectors.

Robert

Hi Gene,

Where obviously that is (99 - 4*233)/7

= -119

as I dropped the sign again :-(. So it is
119 flats rather than sharps as for your
calculation.

So (for anyone reading this who has lost
the thread of the discussion)

This shows that 3^100/5^232 is Bbbb (119 times)
to within octave equivalence and ignoring
syntonic comma drift, just by way of
example to show how you can calculate
the note name for any point in the
lattice.

Robert

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> > since there's been so much negative reaction to
> > "um" and "vum", Paul and i decided to scrap it
> > and go with "promo" (for _pro_jective _mo_nzo).
>
> Does this mean provo is a projective val?

sounds good to me. :D

write up a good definition for me.

> Do we get to have multivals and multimonzos,

already been in the Encyclopaedia more than a week.

> and are these biprovos or probizos?

sure. attach your prefixes however you wish,
but give me good newbie/math-tech definitions, please.

i promise ... if you give me definitions, i'll publish
them in the Encyclopaedia. it's easy for me to
create new Encyclopaedia pages if others write the
definitions, and the more the better. it was always
supposed to be a communal work from the beginning.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_55270.html#55325

> I think we should have agreed on an answer, and we don't seem to.
>
> > I'll c.c. this to tuning-jargon so we can
> > follow it up further there if necessary
> > as it is really about the definition of
> > commatic and chromatic unison vectors.
>
> I was hoping not to have to subscribe to tuning-jargon. Why not
follow
> up to tuning math?

***Doesn't the forum "Tuning Jargon" have a negative connotation from
the "get go?" I can't imagine people being interested in subscribing
to that...

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_55270.html#55326

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> > since there's been so much negative reaction to
> > "um" and "vum", Paul and i decided to scrap it
> > and go with "promo" (for _pro_jective _mo_nzo).
>
> Does this mean provo is a projective val? Do we get to have
multivals
> and multimonozs, and are these biprovos or probizos?

***The word is "proboscis" and I have one right in front of me...

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> ***Doesn't the forum "Tuning Jargon" have a negative connotation from
> the "get go?" I can't imagine people being interested in subscribing
> to that...

I'm subscribed to too many groups as it is, but it's moot. I can't
find it.

>> ***Doesn't the forum "Tuning Jargon" have a negative connotation from
>> the "get go?" I can't imagine people being interested in subscribing
>> to that...
>
>I'm subscribed to too many groups as it is,

Ditto.

-C.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
>
> > ***Doesn't the forum "Tuning Jargon" have a negative
> > connotation from the "get go?" I can't imagine people
> > being interested in subscribing to that...

if some folks are complaining about too much jargon
on this list, then i can't imagine why those who want
to discuss the jargon would continue to post it here,
when they have a place created specifically for it.

> I'm subscribed to too many groups as it is, but it's moot.
> I can't find it.

/tuning-jargon/

-monz

>if some folks are complaining about too much jargon
>on this list, then i can't imagine why those who want
>to discuss the jargon would continue to post it here,
>when they have a place created specifically for it.

Here are some possible reasons:

() They don't agree that there's a jargon problem.

() They don't want to subscribe to another group.

() They don't think a group with such a narrow focus
is a good idea.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:

> > if some folks are complaining about too much jargon
> > on this list, then i can't imagine why those who want
> > to discuss the jargon would continue to post it here,
> > when they have a place created specifically for it.
>
> Here are some possible reasons:
>
> () They don't agree that there's a jargon problem.
>
> () They don't want to subscribe to another group.
>
> () They don't think a group with such a narrow focus
> is a good idea.
>
> -Carl

ok, those are all valid points.

but if people here *do* continue to complain about
jargon, there's a Yahoo home for it.

so those who feel that they need to run from this
list to discuss jargon can do so there unmolested.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> but if people here *do* continue to complain about
> jargon, there's a Yahoo home for it.
>
> so those who feel that they need to run from this
> list to discuss jargon can do so there unmolested.

Great idea! Does this mean that all those who have a compulsion to
invent and use new one syllable words for concepts we've been
happily using a two or three word phrase for, for the past decade or
more, will now do it on the new tuning-jargon list, and not bother
this list with them? :-)

hi Dave,

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

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> > but if people here *do* continue to complain about
> > jargon, there's a Yahoo home for it.
> >
> > so those who feel that they need to run from this
> > list to discuss jargon can do so there unmolested.
>
> Great idea! Does this mean that all those who have a
> compulsion to invent and use new one syllable words
> for concepts we've been happily using a two or three
> word phrase for, for the past decade or more, will
> now do it on the new tuning-jargon list, and not bother
> this list with them? :-)

i hope so! ;-D

so far, it seems that "all those who have a compulsion
to invent and use new one syllable words for concepts
we've been happily using a two or three word phrase for"
means me, Gene, and Robert ... which so far also happens
to account for the entire membership of tuning-jargon.
so there you go.

as i said to Joe Pehrson, you can be sure that for a
couple of centuries tuning theorists talked about
"logarithmic pitch-height of an interval", but it
wasn't until 1875 that Ellis came up with "cents",
which we today find so useful.

guess i just like to try to stay ahead of the curve. ;-)

-monz

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

> Great idea! Does this mean that all those who have a compulsion to
> invent and use new one syllable words for concepts we've been
> happily using a two or three word phrase for, for the past decade or
> more, will now do it on the new tuning-jargon list, and not bother
> this list with them? :-)

No one has been using a phrase to mean exactly what vum/promo means.
The idea of defining such a thing is new.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_55270.html#55382

> >if some folks are complaining about too much jargon
> >on this list, then i can't imagine why those who want
> >to discuss the jargon would continue to post it here,
> >when they have a place created specifically for it.
>
> Here are some possible reasons:
>
> () They don't agree that there's a jargon problem.
>
> () They don't want to subscribe to another group.
>
> () They don't think a group with such a narrow focus
> is a good idea.
>
> -Carl

***And "jargon" is a somewhat negative term, as is "gobbledygook..."

I suppose we could call the forum "Tuning Gobbledygook..."

Or possibly, "Tuning Gobbledygoogle...?" Or Tuning "Googledygabble?"

Seriously, though, how about "Tuning Terms" or such like... not so
negative... :)

JP

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

/tuning/topicId_55270.html#55389

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> > but if people here *do* continue to complain about
> > jargon, there's a Yahoo home for it.
> >
> > so those who feel that they need to run from this
> > list to discuss jargon can do so there unmolested.
>
> Great idea! Does this mean that all those who have a compulsion to
> invent and use new one syllable words for concepts we've been
> happily using a two or three word phrase for, for the past decade
or
> more, will now do it on the new tuning-jargon list, and not bother
> this list with them? :-)

***Ummm... yum, yum vuuum... Sounds like a Beckett play...

JP