Re: Doc: Some miscellaneous suggestions from Peter Toye (issue 579280043 by address@hidden)

[lilypond]

-------------------------
Friday, February 7, 2020, 8:39:36 PM, you wrote:

> Am 06.02.2020 um 22:55 schrieb
> address@hidden:
>> https://codereview.appspot.com/579280043/diff/563480043/Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely
>> File Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely (right):
>>
>> https://codereview.appspot.com/579280043/diff/563480043/Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely#newcode162
>> Documentation/learning/common-notation.itely:162: @notation{note names}
>> and @notation{accidentals},
>> Here I disagree.
>> >From wikpedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alteration
>> "In music, alteration is the use of a neighboring pitch in the chromatic
>> scale in place of its diatonic neighbor."
>> An _accidental_ is the printed ♯-sign or ♭-sign, etc, indicating the
>> alteration.
>> Thus "accidentals" is plain wrong here. Please keep "alterations"
> That were my thoughts, too.
> But I ascribe more importance to Peter's
> opinion (as a native speaker)
> than to mine, so
> it is difficult for me to decide now...

Is 'alteration' an American English term? I've never heard it in British 
English. But our languages diverge... Are there any US speakers in this 
discussion? Wikipedia tends to have a US bias IMHO.

'Alteration' does not appear at all as a heading in the Oxford Companion to 
Music. However, 'accidental' is defined as a 'sign used in musical notation', 
which rather leaves open the question of how to describe a change to a note in 
the abstract. Something I've not really thought about. Hmmm...

But this leaves me very unhappy about NR 1.1.1.4, which is called 'accidentals' 
when the first sentence is describing alterations: cis in D major is an 
alteration, not an accidental.

>>
>> Probably:
>> @notation{note names} and their @notation{alterations},
>>
>> https://codereview.appspot.com/579280043/
>>