Talk:Slendroschisma: Difference between revisions

Line 3:

This name sounds confusing to me, like it's describing the comma of [[slendric]] when it is not. Similar to [[256/255]], I think clarifications like "not to be confused with slendric comma (1029/1024, 8.43¢) or slendro diesis (49/48, 35.7¢)" should not be not needed. It is even worse than with the 256/255 situation here, since the temperament of this comma has been already named "slendrismic" now, and because there are already are 2 [[slendro]]-related interval names to begin with (slendric comma and slendro diesis). This name is derived from "slendric schisma", so I would suggest something like slendrischisma, similar to the [[garischisma]], that would be different enough for it to be understood to not be a slendro comma.

[[User:CompactStar|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar|talk]]) 01:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

: I know the suffix -ismic is often given to full-prime-limit temperaments, while the -ic suffix is given to temperaments in the subgroup that covers the primes used by the comma. In the case of 1029/1024, that pair corresponds to "gamelismic" and "slendric", names which were probably coined before that naming convention. 1029/1024 seems to be called the gamelisma, not the slendric comma, although it is currently the characteristic comma associated with slendric. Maybe "gamelic" could replace "slendric", freeing up "slendric" for a pair with "slendrismic" along with the "slendrisma". That said, I don't how much history the "gamelismic" and "slendric" temperaments each have, and I don't know historically relevant/appropriate it is to name regular temperaments after the slendro scale. For the record, I am not either considering whether the slendrisma is actually worth being named that, I'm just proposing solutions to avoid the naming conflict. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 02:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 This name sounds confusing to me, like it's describing the comma of [[slendric]] when it is not. Similar to [[256/255]], I think clarifications like "not to be confused with slendric comma (1029/1024, 8.43¢) or slendro diesis (49/48, 35.7¢)" should not be not needed. It is even worse than with the 256/255 situation here, since the temperament of this comma has been already named "slendrismic" now, and because there are already are 2 [[slendro]]-related interval names to begin with (slendric comma and slendro diesis). This name is derived from "slendric schisma", so I would suggest something like slendrischisma, similar to the [[garischisma]], that would be different enough for it to be understood to not be a slendro comma.
 [[User:CompactStar|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar|talk]]) 01:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
+: I know the suffix -ismic is often given to full-prime-limit temperaments, while the -ic suffix is given to temperaments in the subgroup that covers the primes used by the comma. In the case of 1029/1024, that pair corresponds to "gamelismic" and "slendric", names which were probably coined before that naming convention. 1029/1024 seems to be called the gamelisma, not the slendric comma, although it is currently the characteristic comma associated with slendric. Maybe "gamelic" could replace "slendric", freeing up "slendric" for a pair with "slendrismic" along with the "slendrisma". That said, I don't how much history the "gamelismic" and "slendric" temperaments each have, and I don't know historically relevant/appropriate it is to name regular temperaments after the slendro scale. For the record, I am not either considering whether the slendrisma is actually worth being named that, I'm just proposing solutions to avoid the naming conflict. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 02:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)