[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: imprecise Taktlinie in german doc (NR)

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: imprecise Taktlinie in german doc (NR)
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 08:27:22 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

-Eluze <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> -Eluze <address@hidden> writes:
>>> yes, but the term Taktzahl is mainly found in technical contexts!
>> I was talking about "Taktzahlen". 
> what's wrong about using the singular?

That you'll get many more technical terms rather than musical.

>>  Let's see where this leads Google:
>>     Results for: taktzahlen
>>     #
>>     Musiksoftware Forum: Taktzahlen bei Sibelius
>> One for me.
> is Sibelius the reference now?

This is a _forum_, not the official documentation.  If you allow only
Lilypond references, you'll only get the previous documentation state.
That's going in circles.

>>     #
>>     Ulrich Siegele: Taktzahlen als Ordnungsfaktor in Suiten- und ...
>> Nontechnical, but measure count.
> yes, we are talking about measures!

Sigh.  That one was a point for _you_, namely measure _count_ rather
than measure _number_.  But you argue just as vividly against yourself
than anybody else.

>>     #
>>     Research centre Beethoven-Archiv
>>      - [ Translate this page ]
>>     Sie vermuten ganz richtig, die Taktzahlen stammen nicht von den
>> Komponisten, ... Taktzahlen wurden erst sehr spät im 19. Jahrhundert
>> eingeführt. ...
>> Point for me.
> no - you can't claim Beethoven as a protagonist since obviously he did not
> use "Taktzahlen"

So if a Beethoven research center discusses musical terms, this does not
count?  And what makes you sure that Beethoven did not use "Taktzahlen"
as a term?  Because he was a Frenchman or what?

Sorry, it does not appear like you actually are interested in arguing
for the sake of getting the best documentation quality for Lilypond, but
the worst discussion quality on the list.

>>> in a musical context it often means the number of measures which
>>> e.g. build a verse (in german: die (An-) Zahl (der) Takte
>> Not really "often".
> often enough

For you to invent new terminology and have it disseminated by Lilypond?

> - and many meanings have disappeared or have been perverted because
> people did not really understand them; if a majority uses a word in a
> special meaning this does not mean other meanings are wrong!

It is not Lilypond's documentation's task to invent new terms,
regardless how nice they might be.  It is the task to explain Lilypond
in terms the user is familiar with.

>>> obviously you can say: "Die Nummer des Taktes wird durch eine Zahl
>>> über dem Taktstrich angezeigt" but not "Die Nummer des Taktes wird
>>> durch eine Nummer über dem Taktstrich angezeigt".
>> Uh, you are aware that you are arguing against your own proposal
>> here?
> not really - here i just state that the number ("Nummer") or the
> measure is referenced by a "Zahl" which implies that the "Nummer/Takt"
> is the higher context. this also means that the "Takt" or "Taktnummer"
> has a meaning by itself whereas the "Zahl" is nothing for itself. if
> you use the term "Taktzahl" you are on the "wrong" level, but still
> many would understand what is meant.

Your argument does not make enough sense to analyze it.  And again, you
try to argue for some inherent superiority of your claim, not for its
common established use.  You are missing the point.

>> I've also seen "Taktziffern" in composition competition rules, but
>> that term makes my technical hide crawl, since its translation would
>> be "measure digits".  "Ziffern" are strictly the letters 0 to 9.
> "Wie hoch würden Sie den Schaden beziffern?" nobody would limit this
> to a letter, in America they would claim for millions!

"beziffern" means "mit Ziffern versehen", not "mit einer einzelnen
Ziffer versehen".

"Ein Wort buchstabieren" also does not mean that there is just a single
letter for the whole word.

> anyway, thanks for this discussion!

I have a hard time believing that you are serious.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]