Re: would 'gn' for G-natural be useful in \language "english" ?

[Keith OHara]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 03:06:31 -0700, Brian Barker <address@hidden> wrote:

> At 23:41 28/08/2014 -0700, Keith OHara wrote:
> > The suggestion quoted below from the bug-lilypond list
> > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2014-08/msg00037.html>
> > makes sense to me, as an addition to the \language "english"  note-names.
> >
> > It would not fit in German-style pitch-names, where 'cis' and 'ces'
> > get completely distinct names from 'c'.
>
> Sorry, but I don't see the distinction you are trying to make between
> German and English. Surely C, C-sharp, and C-flat (and for that
> matter -double sharp and -double flat) have separate names in any
> language, including German, English, German Lilypond, and English Lilypond?

In English the names use two parts, noun-adjective, which allows the construction 
"C-natural".  German has single words (ces c cis) for the pitches, and these are distinct 
from the names for the alterations (Be, AuflösungZeichen, Kreuz).  English speakers use 
"C-natural" to name the pitch in contexts where the key has sharped the scale-step C.


>  After entering "cn" in, say, D major,
> one would readily fall into the trap of using "c" in the next bar
> where "cis" (or "cs") was actually meant and required.

The feature-request implicitly assumed, based on experience, that such errors 
already happen.  Anyone using, for example, ABC notation had developed the 
habit of typing 'C' for the pitch at scale-step C in the key.

The distinct naming was suggested as a way to help us more efficiently correct 
those errors.

Would the ability to enter 'cn', or a note in the "Languages" table saying "In 
English 'cn' is an alternative to 'c' to denote the pitch C-natural", actually increase the 
rate of forgetting the 's' in 'cs' ?