David,
Good point. You could look at it as a noun adjunct. A noun modifying
another noun, serving in the capacity of an adjective, in this case.
I imagine that in an inflected language, such as Latin, the noun “dynamic” would
be in the genitive case while the noun “level” would be in accusative case (since
it is the object of the verb I used, “denotes”). That would have the sentence
translate to English as “It denotes a level of dynamic to be expressed” which doesn’t
really change the meaning.
Since English is a (mostly) non-inflected language, we just stick the two nouns
together without benefit of case endings, and most of the time understand it
the right way, anyhow.
But getting back to the use of “dynamic” as an adjective in my sentence example,
it needn’t be taken to mean “a level that is dynamic, i.e. changing”. Merriam-Webster
lists “dynamic” as an adjective with one of the definitions, “of or relating to dynamics
(ENTRY 1)” [which is “variation and contrast in force or intensity (as in music)” in
definition 3.] So, you see, we are _both_ right!
Now that I have out-pedanticised you, perhaps I have descended to the level of “arrant
pedantry up with which you will not put.”
😊 But I, too, am a logophile, and couldn’t
resist the fun of word play.
BoG
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David Zelinsky <dzpost@dedekind.net> writes:
Just a pendantic remark that, in the phrase "dynamic level", the word
"dynamic" is still being used as a noun, though it is modifying another
noun. Technically it is a "noun adjunct". It would also make sense to
interperet it as the *adjective* "dynamic", but then "dynamic level"
would mean a level that is dynamic, i.e. changing. That makes sense,
but it's not what was meant in the present context.
-David
Robert Gaebler <Bob.Gaebler@outlook.com> writes:
> Jacques,
>
> Thanks… happy to advise. I would call \ff a dynamic.
> “Dynamics” is an interesting word, described as “plural in form,
> singular or plural in construction” in Merriam-Webster. The plural
> construct usually refers to the entire range of variation of loud to
> soft within a piece. So you might say, “The dynamics in this etude
> are exquisite!” (Plural in construction.)
> But a conductor or music teacher might caution, “Now, watch the
> dynamics here!” (Singular in construction, admonishing caution in the
> _application_ of dynamic _expression_ in this particularly difficult
> passage.)
> The \ff is a specific mark denoting a dynamic level to be applied at
> the point of usage. Note that “dynamic” is both an adjective and a
> noun. The mark in the score is referred to as a dynamic (noun). It
> denotes a dynamic (adjective) level to be expressed.
> I hope this helps.
>
> BoG
>
> From: Jacques Menu<mailto:imj-muzhic@bluewin.ch>
> Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 1:00 AM
> To: Robert Gaebler<mailto:Bob.Gaebler@outlook.com>
> Cc: Jacques Menu<mailto:imj-muzhic@bluewin.ch>; lilypond-user@gnu.org<mailto:lilypond-user@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Terminology question
>
> Hello Robert,
>
> 'figured bass signature’ is also a temptating choice, analog to ’time signature’…
>
> BTW, another question came to me: in the LP notation manual, ‘dynamic’ is sometimes a noun as in ‘dynamics’ and sometimes an adjective as in ’dynamic mark’.
> So, is \ff a dynamic or a dynamics?
>
> These questions of mine are to stick to strict naming in my code, where both figured bass and dynamics occur in the singular and plural forms.
>
> JM
>
>
>
> Le 17 juin 2021 à 18:26, Robert Gaebler <Bob.Gaebler@outlook.com<mailto:Bob.Gaebler@outlook.com>> a écrit :
>
>
> Jacques Menu <imj-muzhic@bluewin.ch<mailto:imj-muzhic@bluewin.ch>> writes:
>
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> What would be the plural of ‘figured bass’, if that applies, to denote several
>> occurrences of the figures in a score, the same way has there can be several
>> harmonies? Maybe ‘figured bass figures’?
>>
>> In the example below, there 5 such occurrences:
>>
>>
>> Thanks for. your help!
>
>
> As many others have pointed out, there is no standard term, for what
> you have in mind, in English. I think the phrase "bass figure" works,
> and would be reasonably well understood from context.
>
> Nevertheless, ad hoc neologisms abound in English usage, and you would
> not be out of place introducing your own term. Just try to make it
> intuitive or recognizable from similar usage.
>
> Borrowing from the German, as mentioned by Lukas, let me mention that
> the word "signature" has fairly common English usage within
> technology, to refer to a collection of properties or characteristics
> that identify a particular instance of an object or event. So in a
> discussion of some specific figured bass examples, you might mention
> "these five figured bass signatures from measures 10, 12, 14, 22, and
> 23...". I think most people would figure it out from the
> context. Maybe it would even catch on and become our English term for
> an instance of a figured bass symbol.
> -----
> Bob Gaebler