Re:Advice on naming and structuring scholarLY commands

[Flaming Hakama by Elaine]

This is probably tilting at windmills at this point,
since we seem to have adopted this language,
both in LilyPond and in the ee.

But, from the perspective of our terminology reflecting English language usage,
I feel compelled to point out that "consist" and "consisted"
are not used in English as active verbs. 

Yes, these do work in the passive, or in the past tense. 
As in "my meal consisted of steak and potatoes",
or "my meal consists of steak and potatoes".

But you would not say, "I consisted a meal of steak and potatoes",
nor would you say, "I consisted parsley to a meal of steak and potatoes."

To respresent the act of creation, or adding something,
you need to choose another word, like:
"I cooked/created/prepared a meal of steak and potatoes".

Or, "I added parsley to a meal of steak and potatoes".


Once you've done the creation of the meal,
you can talk about what the meal consists of.


Here are two recent usages on this list:

>>  From the Engraver tutorial in the Contributor's Guide (Acknowledging grobs):
>>
>>         Acknowledge functions are called in the order engravers are
>>      ‘\consist’-ed (the only exception is if you set ‘must-be-last’ to ‘#t’).

In this particular case, it is making a verb out of a command name,
so it is not terrible since the syntax clarifies the grammar. 


But when using it as a word, it does not parse well:

> When an engraver is consisted to a Voice or Staff or similar context
> only properties created through overrides are visible to the
> acknowledger while tweaks seem to be hidden. However, if I consist the
> engraver to Score also tweaks are recognized.


Here is a usage of the \consists command:

  \context {
    \Staff
    \consists Mark_engraver
    \consists Metronome_mark_engraver
  }

To convey what this does, it would be more along the lines of
"Create a Staff context that consists of a Mark_engraver and Metronome_mark_engraver".

Or, "Create a Staff context and add a Mark_engraver and Metronome_mark_engraver".


But you would not say "Consist a Staff context with a Mark_engraver and Metronome_mark_engraver".

Nor would you say "Consist a Mark_engraver and Metronome_mark_engraver to a Staff context".

I mean, you could say that, but it does not make sense to a native English speaker. 

In this sense, if commands are to be read as verbs, maybe we should change the command name.
Is there a reason why we couldn't use \with, or \add ? 

  \context {
    \Staff
    \with Mark_engraver
    \with Metronome_mark_engraver
  }

  \context {
    \Staff
    \add Mark_engraver
    \add Metronome_mark_engraver
  }

I think that conveys more clearly what is happening.

Thanks,

Elaine Alt

415 . 341 .4954                                           "Confusion is highly underrated"

address@hidden

Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-