User talk:Aura: Difference between revisions

Line 217:

:: Also, I would strongly suggest you think about your idea of using any shortened form of anything. In part, this is non-computer thinking, where we have to write and type anything manually. In case of even a little hardness, we don't do this anymore, right? We need to think exclusively about readability, not about writing. If some word is too long, you need to understand perfectly: where exactly it may not fit? can it be confused with some other word? If you cannot answer such questions, rethink shortening, maybe it can only make things worse. Well, just an idea to share... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Sunday 2021 February 14, 19:29 UTC''

::: For the record, I do think that “Mixolydic” works as an adjective in describing the modes of the diatonic scales, however, my reservations have more to do with when the diatonic mode names are eventually combined with each other in order to name and describe non-diatonic modes, which I do eventually plan on covering at some point. If we use "mixolydic" as the 'only' adjective, we'd get "lydomixolydic", and "mixolydaeolic"- which are rather unwieldy, even in spoken form- ~~instead~~ of ~~the easier~~ "~~lydomyxic~~" ~~and~~ "~~Myxaeolic~~"~~, which are the actual adjective forms for~~ the ~~non-diatonic modes~~ in question. I guess you can say that the shortened forms are more useful as combining forms. As long as we consider that caveat, I can indeed change "Myxic" to the more obvious "Mixolydic". Does that make sense? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

::: For the record, I do think that “Mixolydic” works as an adjective in describing the modes of the diatonic scales, however, my reservations have more to do with when the diatonic mode names are eventually combined with each other in order to name and describe non-diatonic modes, which I do eventually plan on covering at some point. If we use "mixolydic" as the 'only' adjective, we'd get "lydomixolydic", and "mixolydaeolic"- which are rather unwieldy, even in spoken form- not to mention that the instance of "lyd-" in "mixolydaeolic" makes it sound like the mode in question is a cross between Lydian, Mixolydian and Aeolian rather than just a combination of Mixolydian and Aeolian. I guess you can say that the shortened forms are more useful as combining forms. As long as we consider that caveat, I can indeed change "Myxic" to the more obvious "Mixolydic". Does that make sense? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:52, 14 February 2021 view source Aura (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, emailconfirmed 5,920 edits No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 19:59, 14 February 2021 view source Aura (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, emailconfirmed 5,920 edits No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 217:		Line 217:
	:: Also, I would strongly suggest you think about your idea of using any shortened form of anything. In part, this is non-computer thinking, where we have to write and type anything manually. In case of even a little hardness, we don't do this anymore, right? We need to think exclusively about readability, not about writing. If some word is too long, you need to understand perfectly: where exactly it may not fit? can it be confused with some other word? If you cannot answer such questions, rethink shortening, maybe it can only make things worse. Well, just an idea to share... — [[User:SAKryukov\|SA]], ''Sunday 2021 February 14, 19:29 UTC''		:: Also, I would strongly suggest you think about your idea of using any shortened form of anything. In part, this is non-computer thinking, where we have to write and type anything manually. In case of even a little hardness, we don't do this anymore, right? We need to think exclusively about readability, not about writing. If some word is too long, you need to understand perfectly: where exactly it may not fit? can it be confused with some other word? If you cannot answer such questions, rethink shortening, maybe it can only make things worse. Well, just an idea to share... — [[User:SAKryukov\|SA]], ''Sunday 2021 February 14, 19:29 UTC''

	::: For the record, I do think that “Mixolydic” works as an adjective in describing the modes of the diatonic scales, however, my reservations have more to do with when the diatonic mode names are eventually combined with each other in order to name and describe non-diatonic modes, which I do eventually plan on covering at some point. If we use "mixolydic" as the 'only' adjective, we'd get "lydomixolydic", and "mixolydaeolic"- which are rather unwieldy, even in spoken form- ~~instead~~ of ~~the easier~~ "~~lydomyxic~~" ~~and~~ "~~Myxaeolic~~"~~, which are the actual adjective forms for~~ the ~~non-diatonic modes~~ in question. I guess you can say that the shortened forms are more useful as combining forms. As long as we consider that caveat, I can indeed change "Myxic" to the more obvious "Mixolydic". Does that make sense? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 19:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)		::: For the record, I do think that “Mixolydic” works as an adjective in describing the modes of the diatonic scales, however, my reservations have more to do with when the diatonic mode names are eventually combined with each other in order to name and describe non-diatonic modes, which I do eventually plan on covering at some point. If we use "mixolydic" as the 'only' adjective, we'd get "lydomixolydic", and "mixolydaeolic"- which are rather unwieldy, even in spoken form- not to mention that the instance of "lyd-" in "mixolydaeolic" makes it sound like the mode in question is a cross between Lydian, Mixolydian and Aeolian rather than just a combination of Mixolydian and Aeolian. I guess you can say that the shortened forms are more useful as combining forms. As long as we consider that caveat, I can indeed change "Myxic" to the more obvious "Mixolydic". Does that make sense? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 19:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)