Re: would 'gn' for G-natural be useful in \language "english" ?
Keith OHara <k-ohara5a5a <at> oco.net>
2014-08-29 15:38:09 GMT
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 03:06:31 -0700, Brian Barker <b.m.barker <at> btinternet.com> wrote:
> At 23:41 28/08/2014 -0700, Keith OHara wrote:
>> The suggestion quoted below from the bug-lilypond list
>> makes sense to me, as an addition to the \language "english" note-names.
>> It would not fit in German-style pitch-names, where 'cis' and 'ces'
>> get completely distinct names from 'c'.
> Sorry, but I don't see the distinction you are trying to make between
> German and English. Surely C, C-sharp, and C-flat (and for that
> matter -double sharp and -double flat) have separate names in any
> language, including German, English, German Lilypond, and English Lilypond?
In English the names use two parts, noun-adjective, which allows the construction "C-natural". German
has single words (ces c cis) for the pitches, and these are distinct from the names for the alterations (Be,
AuflösungZeichen, Kreuz). English speakers use "C-natural" to name the pitch in contexts where the key
has sharped the scale-step C.
> After entering "cn" in, say, D major,
> one would readily fall into the trap of using "c" in the next bar
> where "cis" (or "cs") was actually meant and required.
The feature-request implicitly assumed, based on experience, that such errors already happen. Anyone
using, for example, ABC notation had developed the habit of typing 'C' for the pitch at scale-step C in the key.
The distinct naming was suggested as a way to help us more efficiently correct those errors.