Talk:TAMNAMS - Revision history

Ganaram inukshuk at 18:25, 10 November 2023

2023-11-10T18:25:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:25, 10 November 2023
Line 76:		Line 76:

	Using existing names of temperaments in some way was a difficult thing to avoid, so we altered some of the temperament name-derived names we used. We used mos names directly derived from temperament names via the suffix -oid only for temperaments that are so inaccurate they might as well just refer to corresponding MOS pattern. [[User:Inthar\|Inthar]] ([[User talk:Inthar\|talk]]) 14:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)		Using existing names of temperaments in some way was a difficult thing to avoid, so we altered some of the temperament name-derived names we used. We used mos names directly derived from temperament names via the suffix -oid only for temperaments that are so inaccurate they might as well just refer to corresponding MOS pattern. [[User:Inthar\|Inthar]] ([[User talk:Inthar\|talk]]) 14:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

			Maybe I should chime in here as well. The names on my extension page (https://en.xen.wiki/w/User:Ganaram_inukshuk/TAMNAMS_Extension) are for three separate naming systems: systematic, specific, and equave-agnostic, but I believe the specific names are being referenced here.

			The specific names I came up with are meant to follow the mindset of tamnams as close as possible, using temperanemt-suggestive names as a last resort or if sufficiently abstracted from the original temperament name(s), hence the gemstone names (spinel, agate, and olivine containing pine, eight, and nine, in the same spirit as onyx) and villatonic being distantly related of avila and casablanca by use of wordplay (like how jaric references multiple temperaments).

			Somewhat related are the systematic names, a variant of Frostburn's system that abandons the prefixes f-, m-, p-, and s- in favor of hardness prefixes because the single-letter prefixes too were temperament-suggestive (except when used for m- and p-chromatic).

			There were other names (like huxloga, a portmanteau of three temperaments) but I took them down because I didn't feel comfortable using those names because they were conjured up with a shallow understanding of the mos itself. [[User:Ganaram inukshuk\|Ganaram inukshuk]] ([[User talk:Ganaram inukshuk\|talk]]) 18:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Inthar at 14:06, 10 November 2023

2023-11-10T14:06:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:06, 10 November 2023
Line 72:		Line 72:

	[[User:CompactStar\|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar\|talk]]) 09:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)		[[User:CompactStar\|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar\|talk]]) 09:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

			It seems you're interpreting "temperament-agnostic" differently than I do. By "temperament-agnostic", I just meant a mos name that's not of the form $temperament_name[n], and rather than saying that hard diatonic mosses are archy, we can just say they're ultrahard.

			Using existing names of temperaments in some way was a difficult thing to avoid, so we altered some of the temperament name-derived names we used. We used mos names directly derived from temperament names via the suffix -oid only for temperaments that are so inaccurate they might as well just refer to corresponding MOS pattern. [[User:Inthar\|Inthar]] ([[User talk:Inthar\|talk]]) 14:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

CompactStar at 09:25, 10 November 2023

2023-11-10T09:25:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:25, 10 November 2023
Line 63:		Line 63:

	::: We could also specify what kind of hard/soft we're talking about. Is it psychological (don't be so hard/soft on yourself), physical firmness or something else. That way it wouldn't be "dur" in French but "ferme" or something. --[[User:Frostburn\|Frostburn]] ([[User talk:Frostburn\|talk]]) 14:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)		::: We could also specify what kind of hard/soft we're talking about. Is it psychological (don't be so hard/soft on yourself), physical firmness or something else. That way it wouldn't be "dur" in French but "ferme" or something. --[[User:Frostburn\|Frostburn]] ([[User talk:Frostburn\|talk]]) 14:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

			== Temperament-agnostic? ==
			Is the TAMNAMS system actually temperament-agnostic? A majority of MOS names used in this system seems to be derived from temperaments, and an even larger proportion of the ones in the extension by Ganaram inukshuk are. Is temperament-agnosticness a goal but it hasn't been achieved yet?

			If temperament-agnosticness is not a true goal of TAMNAMS, I think it should probably be renamed. Granted "MNAMS" doesn't really roll of the tongue like and also just means "MOS Naming System".

			(FYI I do not view temperament-centricity as a bad thing, in fact I think it could be better than temperament-agnostic sometimes since you can memorize a MOS and temperament name in one go. It has issues for smaller MOSes though where you have lots of lots of temperaments in 1 MOS.)

			[[User:CompactStar\|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar\|talk]]) 09:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Frostburn: /* Hard and soft in French, German, etc. */

2022-09-01T14:28:10Z

Hard and soft in French, German, etc.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:28, 1 September 2022
Line 61:		Line 61:

	:: Sorry for being that late. The Dur/Moll pair in German is sometimes associated with hard/soft, but most non-musicians associate tell with „fröhlich“/„traurig“ (“happy”/“sad”). But this applies only for harmonies and for the key pieces are written in, and only for classic tuning. The terms for tweaked intervals would rather be scharf (sharp) and stumpf (blunt). For example, it has been handed down that Bach wanted all thirds to be sharply tuned. Today, piano tuners still speak of sharp thirds and dull fifths. I hope this helps. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 20:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)		:: Sorry for being that late. The Dur/Moll pair in German is sometimes associated with hard/soft, but most non-musicians associate tell with „fröhlich“/„traurig“ (“happy”/“sad”). But this applies only for harmonies and for the key pieces are written in, and only for classic tuning. The terms for tweaked intervals would rather be scharf (sharp) and stumpf (blunt). For example, it has been handed down that Bach wanted all thirds to be sharply tuned. Today, piano tuners still speak of sharp thirds and dull fifths. I hope this helps. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 20:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

			::: We could also specify what kind of hard/soft we're talking about. Is it psychological (don't be so hard/soft on yourself), physical firmness or something else. That way it wouldn't be "dur" in French but "ferme" or something. --[[User:Frostburn\|Frostburn]] ([[User talk:Frostburn\|talk]]) 14:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Xenwolf: /* Hard and soft in French, German, etc. */ re

2022-08-31T20:27:57Z

Hard and soft in French, German, etc.: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:27, 31 August 2022
Line 59:		Line 59:

	: I suggested mellow/sparkly in place of soft/hard some time ago, maybe that would be better? --[[User:Godtone\|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone\|talk]]) 04:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)		: I suggested mellow/sparkly in place of soft/hard some time ago, maybe that would be better? --[[User:Godtone\|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone\|talk]]) 04:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

			:: Sorry for being that late. The Dur/Moll pair in German is sometimes associated with hard/soft, but most non-musicians associate tell with „fröhlich“/„traurig“ (“happy”/“sad”). But this applies only for harmonies and for the key pieces are written in, and only for classic tuning. The terms for tweaked intervals would rather be scharf (sharp) and stumpf (blunt). For example, it has been handed down that Bach wanted all thirds to be sharply tuned. Today, piano tuners still speak of sharp thirds and dull fifths. I hope this helps. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 20:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Godtone: mellow/sparkly suggestion

2022-08-19T04:17:33Z

mellow/sparkly suggestion

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:17, 19 August 2022
Line 57:		Line 57:

	In many languages, major/minor is called "hard/soft" as in dur, moll, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_signature_names_and_translations. Thus a german speaker couldn't talk about a soft major scale without causing confusion. I think the solution is to find another metaphor for use in these languages only, perhaps angular/rounded. Are there native speakers among us with some suggestions? [[User:TallKite\|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite\|talk]]) 00:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)		In many languages, major/minor is called "hard/soft" as in dur, moll, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_signature_names_and_translations. Thus a german speaker couldn't talk about a soft major scale without causing confusion. I think the solution is to find another metaphor for use in these languages only, perhaps angular/rounded. Are there native speakers among us with some suggestions? [[User:TallKite\|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite\|talk]]) 00:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
	: ~~In German you can say ''hart'' and ''weich''. ''Dur'' and ''Moll'' are only used for major and minor keys. According to the Wikipedia page all the Romance languages use variants~~ of ~~''major'' and ''minor'' for major and minor keys so there's no risk of confusion with native Romance words for~~ hard ~~and soft.~~ [[User:~~Inthar~~\|~~Inthar~~]] ([[User talk:~~Inthar~~\|talk]]) 00:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
			: I suggested mellow/sparkly in place of soft/hard some time ago, maybe that would be better? --[[User:Godtone\|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone\|talk]]) 04:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Inthar: /* Hard and soft in French, German, etc. */ re

2022-08-19T00:58:49Z

Hard and soft in French, German, etc.: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:58, 19 August 2022
Line 57:		Line 57:

	In many languages, major/minor is called "hard/soft" as in dur, moll, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_signature_names_and_translations. Thus a german speaker couldn't talk about a soft major scale without causing confusion. I think the solution is to find another metaphor for use in these languages only, perhaps angular/rounded. Are there native speakers among us with some suggestions? [[User:TallKite\|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite\|talk]]) 00:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)		In many languages, major/minor is called "hard/soft" as in dur, moll, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_signature_names_and_translations. Thus a german speaker couldn't talk about a soft major scale without causing confusion. I think the solution is to find another metaphor for use in these languages only, perhaps angular/rounded. Are there native speakers among us with some suggestions? [[User:TallKite\|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite\|talk]]) 00:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
			: In German you can say ''hart'' and ''weich''. ''Dur'' and ''Moll'' are only used for major and minor keys. According to the Wikipedia page all the Romance languages use variants of ''major'' and ''minor'' for major and minor keys so there's no risk of confusion with native Romance words for hard and soft. [[User:Inthar\|Inthar]] ([[User talk:Inthar\|talk]]) 00:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

TallKite at 00:30, 19 August 2022

2022-08-19T00:30:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:30, 19 August 2022
Line 53:		Line 53:

	: Done --[[User:TallKite\|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite\|talk]]) 01:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)		: Done --[[User:TallKite\|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite\|talk]]) 01:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

			== Hard and soft in French, German, etc. ==

			In many languages, major/minor is called "hard/soft" as in dur, moll, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_signature_names_and_translations. Thus a german speaker couldn't talk about a soft major scale without causing confusion. I think the solution is to find another metaphor for use in these languages only, perhaps angular/rounded. Are there native speakers among us with some suggestions? [[User:TallKite\|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite\|talk]]) 00:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

TallKite at 01:37, 16 August 2022

2022-08-16T01:37:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:37, 16 August 2022
Line 51:		Line 51:

	: Aye. [[User:Inthar\|Inthar]] ([[User talk:Inthar\|talk]]) 00:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)		: Aye. [[User:Inthar\|Inthar]] ([[User talk:Inthar\|talk]]) 00:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

			: Done --[[User:TallKite\|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite\|talk]]) 01:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Inthar: /* Replace paucitonic with collapsed? */

2022-08-16T00:22:15Z

Replace paucitonic with collapsed?

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:22, 16 August 2022
Line 49:		Line 49:

	: I fourth. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 23:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)		: I fourth. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 23:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

			: Aye. [[User:Inthar\|Inthar]] ([[User talk:Inthar\|talk]]) 00:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)