Talk:TAMNAMS
Mosoctave?
If you're going with x-step names (which I don't really see catching on due to notation being ordinal, but that's a different subject), why still use the octave name (8-ave)? The ditave is available, very descriptive, and independent of the "8th". --Ayceman (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "notation being ordinal"? Music notation is visual and doesn't have a direct effect on that language. We used "octave" because the idea of octave as 2/1 is so ingrained that it shouldn't cause any confusion. "Ditave" is harder to say and doesn't clarify anything despite being conceptually nicer. --SupahstarSaga (talk)
- Notation being ordinal means that notation is based on the idea that the root is the "1st", whether it's 1, A, or α', which is why the second is called the second, and so on. Intervals are relative and can be offset, but the pattern is still there. This is very ingrained, so I don't expect it to change much even in microtonal music. Still, that's a different subject.
- I was mostly thinking that, since it's supposed to be a clearely separate system, ditave would not imply 8-step, much like how a nine note system might have a decave/mosdecave instead of an octave. --Ayceman (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not too concerned about scale degree names personally, though we could write up something for that in the future. There's nothing inherently connecting the letter A to the number 0, and in Diamond-mos notation notes don't start from A anyway. It's true that ordinal naming is ingrained, but it's arithmetically really confusing, and it's important for interval arithmetic to be easy when working in an unfamiliar system. Since all the intervals are different anyway, I think it's totally worth it to make the switch.
- There's a lot of precedent for using "octave" to refer to 2/1 in a non-diatonic context. For me, "octave" is just the word for 2/1 and doesn't usually have a specifically diatonic meaning. If the word were "8th" instead, it would be more confusing, but the "ave" suffix distinguishes it from other diatonic interval classes. --SupahstarSaga (talk)
- Additionally, the "ave" or "tave" suffix has been redefined in the community to refer to a JI equave, most commonly with "tritave". Because of that, using "decave" to refer to 2/1 in a non-tone mos would be confusing. --SupahstarSaga (talk)
- I have actually used nonave, decave, and dodecave, but it might be because in my native language the equivalence is immediately obvious. Of course, only for edos, as everything else just has a descriptive universal term (tritave/tertratave/sesquitave/etc). Ditave could be used to provide neutrality, so it might be worth mentioning it as a possibility. Ayceman (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Names "Dipentic" and "Antidipentic"
I wondered that "pentic" for 2L 3s and "antipentic" for 3L 2s but "dipentic" for 6L 4s and "antidipentic" for 4L 6s. I would like to rename of 10-tone MOS scales 4L 6s "dipentic" (as analogy to "pentic") and 6L 4s "antidipentic" (as analogy to "antipentic"). Deal? --Xenllium (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
| MOS pattern | Current name | New name | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4L 6s | Antidipentic | Dipentic | Analogy to "pentic" (2L 3s scale) |
| 6L 4s | Dipentic | Antidipentic | Analogy to "antipentic" (3L 2s scale) |
- It indeed looks like an error that slipped through when these names were decided. I'll echo the question in the Discord server to make sure I'm not missing something. --Fredg999 (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I forgot to pass the question onto Discord, but that doesn't matter anymore now, haha. Thanks Inthar for the edits. --Fredg999 (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Replace paucitonic with collapsed?
I brought this up on discord some time ago, and people seemed to like the idea. More self-explanatory. Similar to equalized, makes both edge cases end in -ed. --TallKite (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Hard and soft in French, German, etc.
In many languages, major/minor is called "hard/soft" as in dur, moll, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_signature_names_and_translations. Thus a german speaker couldn't talk about a soft major scale without causing confusion. I think the solution is to find another metaphor for use in these languages only, perhaps angular/rounded. Are there native speakers among us with some suggestions? TallKite (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- I suggested mellow/sparkly in place of soft/hard some time ago, maybe that would be better? --Godtone (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for being that late. The Dur/Moll pair in German is sometimes associated with hard/soft, but most non-musicians associate tell with „fröhlich“/„traurig“ (“happy”/“sad”). But this applies only for harmonies and for the key pieces are written in, and only for classic tuning. The terms for tweaked intervals would rather be scharf (sharp) and stumpf (blunt). For example, it has been handed down that Bach wanted all thirds to be sharply tuned. Today, piano tuners still speak of sharp thirds and dull fifths. I hope this helps. --Xenwolf (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Temperament-agnostic?
Is the TAMNAMS system actually temperament-agnostic? A majority of MOS names used in this system seems to be derived from temperaments, and an even larger proportion of the ones in the extension by Ganaram inukshuk are. Is temperament-agnosticness a goal but it hasn't been achieved yet?
If temperament-agnosticness is not a true goal of TAMNAMS, I think it should probably be renamed. Granted "MNAMS" doesn't really roll of the tongue like and also just means "MOS Naming System".
(FYI I do not view temperament-centricity as a bad thing, in fact I think it could be better than temperament-agnostic sometimes since you can memorize a MOS and temperament name in one go. It has issues for smaller MOSes though where you have lots of lots of temperaments in 1 MOS.)
CompactStar (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
It seems you're interpreting "temperament-agnostic" differently than I do. By "temperament-agnostic", I just meant a mos name that's not of the form $temperament_name[n], and rather than saying that hard diatonic mosses are archy, we can just say they're ultrahard.
Using existing names of temperaments in some way was a difficult thing to avoid, so we altered some of the temperament name-derived names we used. We used mos names directly derived from temperament names via the suffix -oid only for temperaments that are so inaccurate they might as well just refer to corresponding MOS pattern. Inthar (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I should chime in here as well. The names on my extension page (https://en.xen.wiki/w/User:Ganaram_inukshuk/TAMNAMS_Extension) are for three separate naming systems: systematic, specific, and equave-agnostic, but I believe the specific names are being referenced here.
The specific names I came up with are meant to follow the mindset of tamnams as close as possible, using temperanemt-suggestive names as a last resort or if sufficiently abstracted from the original temperament name(s), hence the gemstone names (spinel, agate, and olivine containing pine, eight, and nine, in the same spirit as onyx) and villatonic being distantly related of avila and casablanca by use of wordplay (like how jaric references multiple temperaments).
Somewhat related are the systematic names, a variant of Frostburn's system that abandons the prefixes f-, m-, p-, and s- in favor of hardness prefixes because the single-letter prefixes too were temperament-suggestive (except when used for m- and p-chromatic).
There were other names (like huxloga, a portmanteau of three temperaments) but I took them down because I didn't feel comfortable using those names because they were conjured up with a shallow understanding of the mos itself. Ganaram inukshuk (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)