Aura
Joined 31 August 2020
m while... |
No edit summary |
||
Line 223: | Line 223: | ||
:::: Thank you for correcting me. Sure, should be “Mixolydic”. I produced “Myxolydic” under the influence of “Myxic”, as I can see it now. :-) — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Sunday 2021 February 14, 22:05 UTC'' | :::: Thank you for correcting me. Sure, should be “Mixolydic”. I produced “Myxolydic” under the influence of “Myxic”, as I can see it now. :-) — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Sunday 2021 February 14, 22:05 UTC'' | ||
:::: For the record, “so we don't confuse” is not a sufficient reason for modifying a letter while creating neologisms. New words also tend to follow cultural tradition, not just convenience or something, so it's always better not to break this principle. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Sunday 2021 February 14, 22:10 UTC'' | :::: For the record, “so we don't confuse” is not a sufficient reason for modifying a letter while creating neologisms. New words also tend to follow cultural tradition, not just convenience or something, so it's always better not to break this principle. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Sunday 2021 February 14, 22:10 UTC'' | ||
::::: True, but if the Wikipedia article on the Jazz scale is any indication, there does seem to be a bit of an emerging tradition to use "myx-" and "myxian" as the shortened combining forms of "Mixolydian", as in "Lydomyxian" and "Myxaeolian". So in effect, that's ultimately the fault of whoever created the words "Lydomyxian" and "Myxaeolian" in the first place, and I can tell you that that was someone else's idea. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC) |