Talk:256/255: Difference between revisions
re |
|||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
:: For avoiding confusion of temperament names, I have proposed more alternative names for 256/255: "char comma", "charic comma", and "charsma" (no-''i'' spelling). Then, 2.3.5.17 rank-3 temperament associated by this comma should be named "charic" and associated full 17-limit rank-6 temperament "charsmic" or "char". --[[User:Xenllium|Xenllium]] ([[User talk:Xenllium|talk]]) 05:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | :: For avoiding confusion of temperament names, I have proposed more alternative names for 256/255: "char comma", "charic comma", and "charsma" (no-''i'' spelling). Then, 2.3.5.17 rank-3 temperament associated by this comma should be named "charic" and associated full 17-limit rank-6 temperament "charsmic" or "char". --[[User:Xenllium|Xenllium]] ([[User talk:Xenllium|talk]]) 05:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC) | ||
::: I don't suppose there's confusion as the temperaments are also being renamed. No one is known to have used them. You can see what Graham has to say [https://www.facebook.com/groups/xenharmonicmath/permalink/2865100270296843/ here]. | |||
::: For that reason and for the reason that ''charisma'' is a real word and that -ismic and -ic are standard naming patterns now, I suggest we settle at ''charisma''/''charismic''/''charic''. | |||
::: I personally am not fond of ''diasemisma''/''diasemismic''/''diasemic'' since 17/16 isn't universally accepted as a diatonic semitone, but I'm okay with this group of names due to their mnemonic nature. It doesn't harm by keeping them. | |||
::: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 08:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC) | |||