Talk:Direct approximation: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 140: | Line 140: | ||
::: Although I'd prefer we keep "patent" out of it. Why not "direct intervals", such as a "direct fifth", if you're looking for something pithy like that? --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 02:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC) | ::: Although I'd prefer we keep "patent" out of it. Why not "direct intervals", such as a "direct fifth", if you're looking for something pithy like that? --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 02:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC) | ||
:::: The reason I'm going the way I'm going with it is so that I can set up a contrast as needed between the two versions of the interval in question. Having a term for the approximations of other intervals derived indirectly by means of the patent val is important in helping to define things like [[telicity]]. While I agree with the idea of a "direct fifth" as a replacement for "patent fifth" as Xenwolf initially meant it, being able to use the term "patent" for these other, non-direct approximations would at least be useful to me. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC) | :::: The reason I'm going the way I'm going with it is so that I can set up a contrast as needed between the two versions of the interval in question. Having a term for the approximations of other intervals derived indirectly by means of the patent val is important in helping to define things like [[telicity]]. While I agree with the idea of a "direct fifth" as a replacement for "patent fifth" as Xenwolf initially meant it, being able to use the term "patent" for these other, non-direct approximations would at least be useful to me and other people who want to deal in telicity. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC) | ||