Call it what you will, but...
zulu
...as far as _I_ am concerned the new year should be called *twenty ten*,
not *two thousand and ten*.
So there!
<discuss>
--
�zulu� VIP
(who is thoroughly fed up with this *two thousand and..* nonsense!)
Ben C
>
> ...as far as _I_ am concerned the new year should be called *twenty ten*,
> not *two thousand and ten*.
>
> So there!
>
><discuss>
I met a time traveller from the future and he referred to 2002 etc. as
"twenty-o-two" just as we talk about "nineteen-o-two" now. So of course
it should be twenty-ten.
Marcus streets
It cannot be Twenty ten - if it were we would be launching our second
trip to Jupiter - or Saturn if you read the book - having found the
black obelisk outside the moon base.
Marcus
The Natural Philosopher
Not with the current governments we wont.
> Marcus
Brian Watson
> ...as far as _I_ am concerned the new year should be called *twenty
> ten*, not *two thousand and ten*.
>
> So there!
>
> <discuss>
So it was "twenty-oh-one - A Space Odyssey", was it?
If it was two thousand and nine this year it will logically be two thousand
and ten from midnight tonight for a year.
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
www.imagebus.co.uk/shop
Michael Kilpatrick
> zulu wrote:
>
>>...as far as _I_ am concerned the new year should be called *twenty
>>ten*, not *two thousand and ten*.
>>
>>So there!
>>
>><discuss>
>
>
> So it was "twenty-oh-one - A Space Odyssey", was it?
>
> If it was two thousand and nine this year it will logically be two thousand
> and ten from midnight tonight for a year.
Why does such strict logic have to play any part in this?
I've never heard anyone say "twenty hundred" or "twenty-oh-oh" for 2000
but we always say "nineteen hundred" for the year 1900. 2000 just
happens to be different in this respect.
Given that the year 2000 was always going to be "two thousand" I think
people are perfectly entitled to continue to name the rest of the decade
in the "two thousand and n" at fashion if they wish.
Beyond that: apart from "seven" the single digits are monosyllabic so it
is not a mouthful to say "two thousand and n" rather than "twenty-oh-n"
because it only requires one extra syllable. However, the greater the
number of syllables in the whole then perhaps the less likelihood of
people using "two thousand" rather than twenty, especially when the "oh"
can be dropped after n is ten or more. So, nobody is likely to say "two
thousand and seventy" instead of "twenty-seventy", yet, arbitrarily,
it's quite likely that it becomes the norm for people to say "two
thousand and n" for the first decade.
Michael
The Natural Philosopher
bugger all the logic, its twenty-ten as far as I am concerned.
zulu
"Marcus streets" <mar...@eightflames.org> wrote in message
news:hhi17u$2jpq$1...@news.ett.com.ua...
You know what this government is like....
Do you really expect them to tell you about it? <VBG>
--
�zulu� VIP
zulu
"Brian Watson" <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_qOdnabxpdmWE6HW...@bt.com...
> zulu wrote:
>> ...as far as _I_ am concerned the new year should be called *twenty
>> ten*, not *two thousand and ten*.
>>
>> So there!
>>
>> <discuss>
>
> So it was "twenty-oh-one - A Space Odyssey", was it?
>
> If it was two thousand and nine this year it will logically be two
> thousand and ten from midnight tonight for a year.
>
...and the Battle of Hastings happened in one thousand and sixty six.
It was never logically two thousand and nine in the first place, now was
it!..
--
�zulu� VIP
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> considered Thu, 31 Dec
Is it? I must check.
twenty oh nine I think.
The key is which takes less syllables
two thou sand and nine
twen tee oh nine
A clear winner for twenty oh nine. But only ny one sylabble. A short head...
when its twenty-ten, its a clear two syllable lead, The absolute winner
by half a length!
The forms have always been interchangeable anyway.."In the year of our
Lord, One thousand seven hundred and forty two"
or seventeen hundred and forty two, or seventeen forty-two
So we have
two thousand and ten
twenty hundred and ten
and twenty-ten
as possibles.
All are clear and unambiguous.
My bet is that twenty-ten will win for common usage, because its shorter.
When I think of 1904, I think 'nineteen-0-four'
the only reason we haven't been 'twenty-o-nine'-ing is because..we haven't!
I have been regularly quoting my credit card expiry as twenty ten, no
one has failed to understand that.
zulu
"Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g8edneOT_ujFCaHW...@pipex.net...
But the argument doesn't hold water for the rest of the century!
--
�zulu� VIP
zulu
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hhi7tt$fu9$3...@news.albasani.net...
Precisely!
--
�zulu� VIP
zulu
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
<pedant> *fewer*
:))
--
�zulu� VIP
Linda Fox
<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>My bet is that twenty-ten will win for common usage, because its shorter.
>
>When I think of 1904, I think 'nineteen-0-four'
>
>the only reason we haven't been 'twenty-o-nine'-ing is because..we haven't!
Who's this "we" then? I've called them twenty-oh all the way from
twenty oh one onwards.
Twenty ten here, then
Linda ff
Jules
>
> ...as far as _I_ am concerned the new year should be called *twenty ten*,
> not *two thousand and ten*.
At least people with bloody shut up about the %#^ing 'noughties'... urgh!
Simon Morris
The real question is whether the decade ends tonight, or in one year's time.
S.
Jules
> The real question is whether the decade ends tonight, or in one year's time.
Technically not for a year. Although calendars have been messed around
with so much in the past that trying to define today as the last day
of the year is probably a bit meaningless, too :-)
zulu
"Jules" <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12.31....@remove.this.gmail.com...
I wouldn't count on it! :-)
--
�zulu� VIP
zulu
"Simon Morris" <si...@letusgothen.org> wrote in message
news:2b3%m.30191$xa7....@newsfe14.ams2...
It's been 10 years since we had that particular argument!
Good grief!
Have I been sitting here _thay_ long?
WIBB
--
�zulu� VIP
Alex
I dunno. It's clear that _a_ decade ends tonight, and with our year
counting system it happens to be numerically convenient to regard the
past 10 years together as a block, so why not mentally group the decades
like that?
Talk of _the_ decade implies AD 1 is the preferred starting point, but
I am free to regard AD 0 (aka 1 BC) as a starting point, and that makes
the counting much nicer since it starts at 0. So there.
zulu
"Alex" <alex....@REMOVE.pobox.com> wrote in message
news:hhil99$j9e$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Surely AD1 and BC1 are 2 years apart?
--
�zulu� VIP
zulu
"zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:kU5%m.20677$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
....or are they?
<g>
--
�zulu� VIP
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com (zulu) wrote:
> "Simon Morris" <si...@letusgothen.org> wrote in message
> news:2b3%m.30191$xa7....@newsfe14.ams2...
> > Jules wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:52:19 +0000, zulu wrote:
> >>
> >>> ...as far as _I_ am concerned the new year should be called
> >>> *twenty ten*, not *two thousand and ten*.
> >>
> >> At least people with bloody shut up about the %#^ing 'noughties'...
> >> urgh!
> >
> > The real question is whether the decade ends tonight, or in one
> > year's time.
>
> It's been 10 years since we had that particular argument!
> Good grief!
> Have I been sitting here _thay_ long?
> WIBB
Nostalgia ain't what it used to be!
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Michael Kilpatrick
> "Michael Kilpatrick" <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:g8edneOT_ujFCaHW...@pipex.net...
>
>>Beyond that: apart from "seven" the single digits are monosyllabic so it
>>is not a mouthful to say "two thousand and n" rather than "twenty-oh-n"
>>because it only requires one extra syllable. However, the greater the
>>number of syllables in the whole then perhaps the less likelihood of
>>people using "two thousand" rather than twenty, especially when the "oh"
>>can be dropped after n is ten or more. So, nobody is likely to say "two
>>thousand and seventy" instead of "twenty-seventy", yet, arbitrarily, it's
>>quite likely that it becomes the norm for people to say "two thousand and
>>n" for the first decade.
>>
>
>
> But the argument doesn't hold water for the rest of the century!
>
Eh? The argument was that there is a little bit more gain in reducing
"two thousand and seventy" to "twenty-seventy" than there is in reducing
"two thousand and nine" to "twenty-oh-nine". Those reductions being from
7 to 5 syllables and from 5 to 4. Therefore there is less pressure (from
the point of view of efficiency) to use the "twenty-something" manner
for the first decade, and there is no life-or-death reason why people
shouldn't then chose arbitrarily to use that for the first decade but
use "twenty-nn" for the rest.
Michael
Linda Fox
<mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Eh? The argument was that there is a little bit more gain in reducing
>"two thousand and seventy" to "twenty-seventy" than there is in reducing
>"two thousand and nine" to "twenty-oh-nine". Those reductions being from
>7 to 5 syllables and from 5 to 4.
I don't think it's the number of syllables that does it. It's the
number of stresses. Two thousand and nine - 3 stresses. Twenty-o-nine
- 2 stresses.
Linda ff
Uncle Arnold
>
> Two thousand and nine - 3 stresses.
Is the wrong answer.
And you presume to teach music. Jeeezus.
A.
Duncan Wood
Kind of fails on the swearing font though if you don't belive in him.
Linda Fox
wrote:
>Linda Fox wrote:
Do you actually know anything about music?
Stress on the two, the thou and the nine. The others are unstressed.
Tap a regular pulse and say two, thou, nine on three consecutive
pulses. Now say it again and fit the little sounds in between.
Take a pulse which divides into three, such as a dotted crotchet in
compound time, "thousand and" will be the three quavers.
Sorry mate. I'm right, you're wrong, in this instance.
Linda ff
Michael Kilpatrick
Sorry, but I think you're wrong.
I can equally well conceive of "two thousand and nine" as occupying two
beats with the "two" being an anacrusis with the stresses being only on
THOU and NINE. This is best achieved by repeating "two thousand and
nine" over and over again to a two-beat.
I can equally well imagine that there are three beats (a 9/8 time with
the "thousand and" occupying the three quavers of the second beat as in
your description) but without that second beat being stressed.
If I imagine it as having beats stressed with TWO and THOU and NINE,
then, when I translate that in to speech, the TWO syllable is unbearably
long and I feel I am waiting for ages for the next beat in order to
stress the THOU in strict time. If I repeat this over and over to a beat
it seems clumsy and forced.
Really, though, I don't think it's appropriate to attempt to force the
rhythms of speech into the strict time-slots of musical time, whether it
be simple of complex time, for to describe it.
It's rather like trying to transcribe and notate an improvised saxophone
solo by Johnny Hodges or Harry Carney and desperately struggling to
decide which beat or fraction of a beat a particular note falls on. The
real answer is that you can't really notate such things adequately. If
you want a saxophonist to reproduce the solo verbatim they can only do
it by "feeling" it, not by reading the rhythms on the page, which are by
necessity limited very much by the media. The rhythms simply don't fit
easily into any sort of notation that is actually *legible*. And that's
something that I know about.
Michael
Michael Kilpatrick
> "zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:kU5%m.20677$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
>>"Alex" <alex....@REMOVE.pobox.com> wrote in message
>>news:
>>>
>>>Talk of _the_ decade implies AD 1 is the preferred starting point, but
>>>I am free to regard AD 0 (aka 1 BC) as a starting point, and that makes
>>>the counting much nicer since it starts at 0. So there.
>>
>>Surely AD1 and BC1 are 2 years apart?
>
>
No. That's the whole damned problem, isn't it? Some idiot forgot to
start counting at zero and as a result we ought technically to view the
decades as beginning with the years ending in a "1" not a zero, and have
the millennium starting in 2001, not 2000. Personally, I don't give a
damn about the supposed birth year of Christ and I'm not interested in
inheriting the silly mistakes of other people centuries dead. Therefore
I view the decades as beginning with the years ending in a zero. We just
have to remember that there is no year zero when it comes to calculating
the passage of time between BC and AD.
Michael
Linda Fox
<mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Sorry, but I think you're wrong.
>
>I can equally well conceive of "two thousand and nine" as occupying two
>beats with the "two" being an anacrusis with the stresses being only on
>THOU and NINE. This is best achieved by repeating "two thousand and
>nine" over and over again to a two-beat.
How do you say it, then? Don't you put a stress on the two? Do you fit
it into the same rhythm as "potato surprise"? I don't, I think I scan
it like "cod herring and shrimp", and I've assumed most people do. I
know there are some expressions which vary depending on which side of
the pond you are - "It's not your fault" in UK would probably give
three stresses, including "your", while I've heard it with only two
from Americans, no stress on the "your".
A thousand and nine, yes, the first syllable is an anacrusis. One
thousand and nine, two thousand and nine, etc, first syllable is on
the beat. Unless you say two thousand like potato.
>
>I can equally well imagine that there are three beats (a 9/8 time with
>the "thousand and" occupying the three quavers of the second beat as in
>your description) but without that second beat being stressed.
Then we have a different interpretation of the word stress - if 9/8
has three beats it has three stresses, whether you make a big deal out
of the second or not.
>
>If I imagine it as having beats stressed with TWO and THOU and NINE,
>then, when I translate that in to speech, the TWO syllable is unbearably
>long and I feel I am waiting for ages for the next beat in order to
>stress the THOU in strict time. If I repeat this over and over to a beat
>it seems clumsy and forced.
Don't you ever sing, then?
>
>Really, though, I don't think it's appropriate to attempt to force the
>rhythms of speech into the strict time-slots of musical time, whether it
>be simple of complex time, for to describe it.
But all singing does that! Do I take it you've never done any opera?
When you set words - did you do grade 5 theory, and assuming you did,.
did you take the option that sets words to a rhythm? - you still have
to start by deciding which syllables are stressed. Depending on the
style, though, you don't have to make all of the beats last the same
amount of time: a lot of recitative is designed to be done at speech
rhythm, so that the actual length of each pulse can be expanded and
contracted to suit, but, important, still places accompaniment
features (chords normally, or chord changes if the accompaniment is
sustained) only if the syllable is stressed, so if you need to write
it out you'll need to transcribe the rhythms in minute detail: how
does that stressed group of syllables really subdivide? - ever done
any speech rhythm Anglican chant? Some psalters have a very detailed
way of notating the stresses in speech rhythm so that everyone is
doing it the same.
>you want a saxophonist to reproduce the solo verbatim they can only do
>it by "feeling" it
LOL I used to know an Italian tenor who insisted that was how he
preferred to do his rhythm ("I prefer to feel it rather than count")
He was very difficult to perform with because his rhythm and everyone
else's pulse didn't fit.
>not by reading the rhythms on the page, which are by
>necessity limited very much by the media. The rhythms simply don't fit
>easily into any sort of notation that is actually *legible*. And that's
>something that I know about.
I have no quibble with that, but we were talking about words and it
does make a difference. After all, it makes no sense in a stressed
language like English to count the syllables. It's like saying "John
likes roast beef" is shorter than "Cock-a-leekie soup" just because
the first has four syllabels and the second has five. The first has
four stresses, the second has three.
Play a recording of Sousa march and walk to it, chanting two thousand
and nine to it, you'll use three steps for it (and probably one step
rest in between, but what's a rest between friends?). Then try
twenty-o-nine - you might still do three steps if you like to stretch
the o a bit, but I think most people would just take two.
Happy new year, Michael :o)
Linda ff
zulu
In other words....
3BC__2BC___1BC__ZERO__1AD__2AD__3AD etc. is as it should be.
3BC__2BC___1BC *and* ZERO *and* 1AD__2AD__3AD etc. is as it is.
Right?
--
�zulu� VIP
Linda Fox
<mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Therefore
>I view the decades as beginning with the years ending in a zero. We just
>have to remember that there is no year zero when it comes to calculating
>the passage of time between BC and AD.
Are there any calculations that can be thrown out by getting that
wrong? Astronomical, for example?
Linda ff
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
We did start counting with zero. But zero is the label of the point of
origin, not a year.
When we use labels such as "1 BC" and "AD 1", we're not refering to
elapsed time, but to a sequence. AD 1 is the first year after the zero
point. We can represent it graphically like this:
year numbers 4 BC | 3 BC | 2 BC | 1 BC | AD 1 | AD 2 | AD 3 | AD 4
-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+---
elapsed time -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
That's entirely consistent with how we measure distance and people's
ages. For example, I am curently 0 miles from where I live. If I go
outside and start walking, then after a while I will have completed
one mile. That first mile starts at zero and ends at a distance of 1
mile. The same applies to age. When I was born, I was zero years old.
After the first year, I was one year old. After I had completed twenty
years, I became 20 years old and entered into my 21st year. As far as
year numbers are concerned, we have now completed 2009 years and have
entered into the 2010th.
Of course, it's perfectly possible to begin a sequence with a label of
zero (start with the 0th item, then the 1st, etc). That's common in
programming, and it's also how we label the floors of multi-storey
buildings in the UK (except that we call the 0th floor "ground"). So
we could, if we wanted, have had an AD 0 at the beginning of the
sequence of years. But, if we're going to do that, then the BC
sequence also has to logically begin with 0 BC. So we'd end up with a
chart like this:
year numbers 3 BC | 2 BC | 1 BC | 0 BC | AD 0 | AD 1 | AD 2 | AD 3
-----+------+------+------+------+------+------+---
elapsed time -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
That would solve the problem of people mistakenly thinking that a
century starts in, eg, 1900 or 2000 instead of 1901 or 2001, but it
wouldn't solve the problem of counting "round the corner" when
calculating timespans that cross the BC/AD boundary - instead of
having no year zero, we'd have to account for the fact that there are
two of them!
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
> Kind of fails on the swearing font though if you don't belive in
> him.
Which font would that be then? :-)
Happy New Year,
--
Colin Rosenstiel
The Natural Philosopher
Give us back our 365 1/4 days!
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
lind...@ntlworld.com (Linda Fox) wrote:
Surely, years at the time were expressed as AUC, so there must have been
equivalences established?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Jules
> In article <op.u5t3x9fphaghkf@lucy>, nntp...@dmx512.co.uk (Duncan Wood)
> wrote:
>
>> Kind of fails on the swearing font though if you don't belive in
>> him.
>
> Which font would that be then? :-)
hellvetica? (best my brain could come up with this morning, sorry)
> Happy New Year,
ditto :)
Cris Galletly
Linda Fox <lind...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:13:58 +0000, Michael Kilpatrick
><mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Sorry, but I think you're wrong.
>>
>>I can equally well conceive of "two thousand and nine" as occupying two
>>beats with the "two" being an anacrusis with the stresses being only on
>>THOU and NINE. This is best achieved by repeating "two thousand and
>>nine" over and over again to a two-beat.
>
>How do you say it, then? Don't you put a stress on the two?
No stress on the two, here. Two THOU zand and NINE.
>Do you fit it into the same rhythm as "potato surprise"?
I don't know how you stress "potato surprise", nor "cod herring and shrimp",
so couldn't comment (would stress both the same way, although with a comma
after cod could see your alternate stressing).
>it like "cod herring and shrimp", and I've assumed most people do. I
>know there are some expressions which vary depending on which side of
>the pond you are - "It's not your fault" in UK would probably give
>three stresses, including "your", while I've heard it with only two
>from Americans, no stress on the "your".
When I say "it's not your fault" sincerely there will be no stress on any
of the syllables other than "fault", and that only very slightly.
>Don't you ever sing, then?
Yes, lots. And I dare to think I'm not that bad at it these days, although
since you probably heard my voice at its absolute breathiest worst I don't
expect you to take me at my word.
--
+ Cris Galletly <gall...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> +
Michael Kilpatrick
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:13:58 +0000, Michael Kilpatrick
> <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Sorry, but I think you're wrong.
>>
>>I can equally well conceive of "two thousand and nine" as occupying two
>>beats with the "two" being an anacrusis with the stresses being only on
>>THOU and NINE. This is best achieved by repeating "two thousand and
>>nine" over and over again to a two-beat.
>
>
> How do you say it, then? Don't you put a stress on the two?
Yes, I probably do in most circumstances, but I don't put stress on the
THOU in the way I think you mean, and I certainly don't time the phrase
such that "thousand and" occupies the same rhythmic space as the "TWO",
which is how you described it, keeping the metric of a musical beat.
> Do you fit
> it into the same rhythm as "potato surprise"?
I might if I were singing it and trying to do so in as small a rhythmic
space as possible because apart from the number "seven" the phrase only
requires a single syllable anacrusis.
>>I can equally well imagine that there are three beats (a 9/8 time with
>>the "thousand and" occupying the three quavers of the second beat as in
>>your description) but without that second beat being stressed.
>
>
> Then we have a different interpretation of the word stress - if 9/8
> has three beats it has three stresses, whether you make a big deal out
> of the second or not.
I could describe it as 3/4 with triplet quavers in the second beat.
Musically speaking, there might be only one stess: the first beat of
each bar.
>
>>Really, though, I don't think it's appropriate to attempt to force the
>>rhythms of speech into the strict time-slots of musical time, whether it
>>be simple of complex time, for to describe it.
>
>
> But all singing does that!
Yes, but we're not talking about singing, we're talking about speaking,
and describing the rhythms and patterns of stress in speech.
Obviously singing (a lot of it, that is) has syllables mostly tied to
the musical beat.
>
>>you want a saxophonist to reproduce the solo verbatim they can only do
>>it by "feeling" it
>
>
> LOL I used to know an Italian tenor who insisted that was how he
> preferred to do his rhythm ("I prefer to feel it rather than count")
> He was very difficult to perform with because his rhythm and everyone
> else's pulse didn't fit.
Well, if he were singing jazz it would be entirely appropriate and
indeed more desirable. Which was exactly what I was talking about, if
you followed the reference to Johnny Hodges.
Michael
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <iqnrj5p86pauipo73...@4ax.com>,
> Linda Fox <lind...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 11:13:58 +0000, Michael Kilpatrick
>> <mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, but I think you're wrong.
>>>
>>> I can equally well conceive of "two thousand and nine" as occupying two
>>> beats with the "two" being an anacrusis with the stresses being only on
>>> THOU and NINE. This is best achieved by repeating "two thousand and
>>> nine" over and over again to a two-beat.
>> How do you say it, then? Don't you put a stress on the two?
>
> No stress on the two, here. Two THOU zand and NINE.
>
A bingo caller, obviously..
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com (Jules) wrote:
Not a swearing font, I'd have thought. Comic Sans?
> > Happy New Year,
>
> ditto :)
And to all our readers!
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Linda Fox
<mic...@mtkilpatrick.SPAMfsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Linda Fox wrote:
>> Do you fit
>> it into the same rhythm as "potato surprise"?
>
>I might if I were singing it and trying to do so in as small a rhythmic
>space as possible because apart from the number "seven" the phrase only
>requires a single syllable anacrusis.
You surprise me. I should have thought that the number of thousands
was significant enough to make it a stressed syllable, not an
anacrusis. Not if it's "a" (as in one). So would you really say, if
asked how many people had attended some event, that it was "four
THOUsand and SIX" rather than "FOUR thousand and SIX"? or better still
"FOUR THOUsand and SIX" so as to distinguish it from 406?
>I could describe it as 3/4 with triplet quavers in the second beat.
Another way of notating the compound pattern I described.
>Musically speaking, there might be only one stess: the first beat of
>each bar.
But then you have only one stress for the entire expression, and since
the last digit is probably the most significant most of the time the
date's mentioned, it needs to have a stress, surely? The way you've
just described it puts the stress only on the "two", but if you fit it
to the same rhythm as "potato surprise", as you say you do, given that
potato starts with an anacrusis, the "two" is going to be unstressed.
In your 3/4 model you would, over a series of bars, perhaps be able to
count up in thousands like "one thousand-and-nine, two
thousand-and-nine, three thousand-and-nine, four thousand-and-nine"
(sounds like a rather nice train rhythm, dum diddly dee, dum diddly
dee)
If you want to count up on ones, though, you probably need to put it
in 4/4 with a rest after the "nine", or perhaps in your 3/4 pattern
but starting on beat 2, so that the "nine" gets the stress it needs.
But then we're back to having three stresses again.
>
>>
>>>Really, though, I don't think it's appropriate to attempt to force the
>>>rhythms of speech into the strict time-slots of musical time, whether it
>>>be simple of complex time, for to describe it.
>>
>> But all singing does that!
>
>Yes, but we're not talking about singing, we're talking about speaking,
>and describing the rhythms and patterns of stress in speech.
The term when referring to poetry is foot. As in iambus, dactyl,
anapest, trochee etc. And they are stress patterns whether they're
spoken against a pulse or in free time. Sorry, I should have used that
word before. If you take an iambic pentameter like "The men of London
never mind the rain" you could say it in a load of different ways
>
>Obviously singing (a lot of it, that is) has syllables mostly tied to
>the musical beat.
As in bar 7 of this?
http://www.sibeliusmusic.com/index.php?sm=home.score&scoreID=45240
>> LOL I used to know an Italian tenor who insisted that was how he
>> preferred to do his rhythm ("I prefer to feel it rather than count")
>> He was very difficult to perform with because his rhythm and everyone
>> else's pulse didn't fit.
>
>Well, if he were singing jazz it would be entirely appropriate and
>indeed more desirable. Which was exactly what I was talking about, if
>you followed the reference to Johnny Hodges.
>
Unfortunately he wasn't. He was singing opera. I think it's true that
mostly musicians feel rather than count for most of the time, even
when playing Mozart, until it gets to be a large number of bars (they
don't think 1-2-3-4 through each bar) - I think the word is
periodicity. But surely even in jazz, if you're trying to perform
_with_ other musicians, at some time, eventually, your periodicity and
theirs has to synchronize?
Sorry, starting to turn into random jottings by this stage. Need to
eat.
cheers
Linda ff
Cris Galletly
The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>A bingo caller, obviously..
Better than a London market fruit caller.
*Don't* try to have a go at my worth as a musician. Just ... don't.
Linda Fox
<gall...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>I don't know how you stress "potato surprise", nor "cod herring and shrimp",
>so couldn't comment (would stress both the same way, although with a comma
>after cod could see your alternate stressing).
Yes, there should be a comma in there, it wasn't meant to suggest
imitation herring a la mock turtle.
I stress "potato surprise" like "the tip of the tongue". Wouldn't
everyone?
>
>>Don't you ever sing, then?
>
>Yes, lots. And I dare to think I'm not that bad at it these days, although
>since you probably heard my voice at its absolute breathiest worst I don't
>expect you to take me at my word.
Can't be worse than mine for half the past year at school. I've
retired now, mainly for that reason and it's already starting to come
back
cheers
Linda ff
zulu
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4tprj5p823hu31h2u...@news.markshouse.net...
No...*end*
with 0 BC. So we'd end up with a
> chart like this:
>
> year numbers 3 BC | 2 BC | 1 BC | 0 BC | AD 0 | AD 1 | AD 2 | AD 3
> -----+------+------+------+------+------+------+---
> elapsed time -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
No BC0 is synchronous with AD1
zulu
Mistype...<deleted> it!
I meant:
No, BC0 is synchronous with AD0
--
�zulu� VIP
Fevric J. Glandules
> Not a swearing font, I'd have thought. Comic Sans?
Certainly makes professional web designers [1] swear.
[1] IANAPWD
Fevric J. Glandules
> If you want a saxophonist to reproduce the solo verbatim they can only do
> it by "feeling" it, not by reading the rhythms on the page, which are by
> necessity limited very much by the media. The rhythms simply don't fit
> easily into any sort of notation that is actually *legible*. And that's
> something that I know about.
If you want it verbatim, then surely they need to go and learn it by
listening to the original, and the manuscript should end up as merely
an aide-memoire. Which is sort-of what manuscript is anyway. OSLT.
Fevric J. Glandules
> I know there are some expressions which vary depending on which side of
> the pond you are - "It's not your fault" in UK would probably give
> three stresses, including "your", while I've heard it with only two
> from Americans, no stress on the "your".
Fantastic example of the importance of stress:
"It's not *your* fault"
"It's *not* your fault"
"It's not your *fault*"
"*It's* not your fault"
for starters, only stressing one word...
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Fevric J. Glandules) wrote:
LOL! Not just them either, now you come to mention it.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Mark Goodge
typed:
>No BC0 is synchronous with AD1
>
>Mistype...<deleted> it!
>
>I meant:
>
>No, BC0 is synchronous with AD0
Then where is the point of origin of the timeline? At what point in
time it stop being BC and become AD?
The only way it makes sense for 0 BC and AD 0 to be synchronous is if
the 0, in both cases, refers to a point in time rather than to a
discrete year. But, in that case, there can't be a year 0, as a a year
is a discrete segment rather than a point.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <hhled4$qbs$3...@news.albasani.net>,
> The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> A bingo caller, obviously..
>
> Better than a London market fruit caller.
>
> *Don't* try to have a go at my worth as a musician. Just ... don't.
Moi?
For all I know you could be a cement mixer or a nightingale.
Brian Watson
> Brian Watson wrote:
>> zulu wrote:
>>
>>> ...as far as _I_ am concerned the new year should be called *twenty
>>> ten*, not *two thousand and ten*.
>>>
>>> So there!
>>>
>>> <discuss>
>>
>>
>> So it was "twenty-oh-one - A Space Odyssey", was it?
>>
>> If it was two thousand and nine this year it will logically be two
>> thousand and ten from midnight tonight for a year.
>
> Why does such strict logic have to play any part in this?
Actually I'm with you on "survival of the fittest" in terms of how dates are
said (except that silly reversing Americans do which turned 11st September
into 9 11).
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
www.imagebus.co.uk/shop
Brian Watson
> Linda Fox wrote:
>>
>> Two thousand and nine - 3 stresses.
>
> Is the wrong answer.
> And you presume to teach music. Jeeezus.
Indeed. It should (of course) be:
Two-oom pah pah,
thou pah pah
sand pah pah
nine.
Very musical and no stress at all.
Linda Fox
<Br...@imagebus.co.uk> wrote:
>Uncle Arnold wrote:
>> Linda Fox wrote:
>>>
>>> Two thousand and nine - 3 stresses.
>>
>> Is the wrong answer.
>> And you presume to teach music. Jeeezus.
>
>Indeed. It should (of course) be:
>
>Two-oom pah pah,
>thou pah pah
>sand pah pah
>nine.
>
>Very musical and no stress at all.
Oh, come on, Brian, I can't believe you'd put a stress on the sand.
Um, as it were.
Sing it to Two Lovely Black Eyes. Three stresses, and then a rest.
(except of course it's a bit slow, so just speed it up)
Then sing twenty o nine to Any Old Iron - two stresses
Both fit naturally, the way I say it, and the way I've heard nearly
everyone else say it.
And there I'll rest my case - getting too stressful.
Linda ff
Brian Watson
Actually I generally take my stress away on holiday with me then, after
about three day, I LEAVE it on the sand.
The rest of the holiday (untl the day before I come home) is then pretty
stress-free.
I expect this to be the same in twenty-oh-one, I mean twenty-ten, that is to
say two thousand and ..... oh bugger!
IGMC....
Linda Fox
<Br...@imagebus.co.uk> wrote:
>Actually I generally take my stress away on holiday with me then, after
>about three day, I LEAVE it on the sand.
>
>The rest of the holiday (untl the day before I come home) is then pretty
>stress-free.
>
>I expect this to be the same in twenty-oh-one, I mean twenty-ten, that is to
>say two thousand and ..... oh bugger!
>
>IGMC....
Should we look forward to twenty-twenty?
Linda ff
Roland Perry
Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Linda Fox <lind...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>Should we look forward to twenty-twenty?
Only those with sufficient vision.
--
Roland Perry
The Natural Philosopher
than ten years to sort it out.
> Linda ff
Linda Fox
<t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Linda Fox wrote:
>> Should we look forward to twenty-twenty?
>>
>I doubt it. Country will be bankrupt by next May and it will take more
>than ten years to sort it out.
Whoosh
>> Linda ff
Jules
Or those with sufficiently wide noses to wear the novelty glasses.
Brian Watson
That WAS how a friend used to describe her age.
Linda Fox
<Br...@imagebus.co.uk> wrote:
>Linda Fox wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:59:12 -0000, "Brian Watson"
>> <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Actually I generally take my stress away on holiday with me then,
>>> after about three day, I LEAVE it on the sand.
>>>
>>> The rest of the holiday (untl the day before I come home) is then
>>> pretty stress-free.
>>>
>>> I expect this to be the same in twenty-oh-one, I mean twenty-ten,
>>> that is to say two thousand and ..... oh bugger!
>>>
>>> IGMC....
>>
>> Should we look forward to twenty-twenty?
>
>That WAS how a friend used to describe her age.
I'm fifty-two-teen in a few days' time :o)
Linda ff
Brian Watson
And I'm tweny <cough> <cough>
Frank Sinatra says during a live concert something like, "there's been a
report in the papers this week that I'm sixty. It's a Goddamn lie: the
body's sixty but I'm twenny-nine!"
Jules
>> I'm fifty-two-teen in a few days' time :o)
>
> And I'm tweny <cough> <cough>
Young enough to do stuff, not old enough to have done much of it? ;-)
magwitch
> Linda Fox wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:57:16 -0000, "Brian Watson"
>> <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Linda Fox wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:59:12 -0000, "Brian Watson"
>>>> <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually I generally take my stress away on holiday with me then,
>>>>> after about three day, I LEAVE it on the sand.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest of the holiday (untl the day before I come home) is then
>>>>> pretty stress-free.
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect this to be the same in twenty-oh-one, I mean twenty-ten,
>>>>> that is to say two thousand and ..... oh bugger!
>>>>>
>>>>> IGMC....
>>>> Should we look forward to twenty-twenty?
>>> That WAS how a friend used to describe her age.
>> I'm fifty-two-teen in a few days' time :o)
>
> And I'm tweny <cough> <cough>
>
> Frank Sinatra says during a live concert something like, "there's been a
> report in the papers this week that I'm sixty. It's a Goddamn lie: the
> body's sixty but I'm twenny-nine!"
>
Brian Watson
Oh, I don't know.
Kilimanjaro (the VERY top) in 2007, Everest Base Camp last year...
I'd call that doing a bit.
Jules
> Jules wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:07:31 +0000, Brian Watson wrote:
>>>> I'm fifty-two-teen in a few days' time :o)
>>>
>>> And I'm tweny <cough> <cough>
>>
>> Young enough to do stuff, not old enough to have done much of it? ;-)
>
> Oh, I don't know.
>
> Kilimanjaro (the VERY top) in 2007, Everest Base Camp last year...
>
> I'd call that doing a bit.
Yeah, I was just kidding - I know you're one of the cam.misc inabitants
who has actually been out and "seen some stuff" :-)
I do think 20 is a bit young to have really had a chance to "do much",
though. Some time in the tate 20's is perhaps a better age to be...
cheers
Jules
RobertL
wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:26:11 GMT, zulu put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
> >No BC0 is synchronous with AD1
>
> >Mistype...<deleted> it!
>
> >I meant:
>
> >No, BC0 is synchronous with AD0
>
> Then where is the point of origin of the timeline? At what point in
> time it stop being BC and become AD?
>
> The only way it makes sense for 0 BC and AD 0 to be synchronous is if
> the 0,
The romans had no zero in their number system so the year went
straigth from1BCto 1AD, didn't it?
Robert
Roland Perry
<93d471f7-0c24-4fca...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, at
08:47:10 on Thu, 7 Jan 2010, RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>The romans had no zero in their number system so the year went
>straigth from1BCto 1AD, didn't it?
The Romans probably never numbered anything based on the Christian
concept of "BC/AD", because the first recorded usage is apparently
531AD, when the Roman Empire was seriously waning.
They numbered their years based on an assumed date for the foundation of
Rome in what today we'd call 753BC.
The Indians invented the concept of "zero" in the 5th Century,
apparently.
--
Roland Perry
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Perry) wrote:
> In message
> <93d471f7-0c24-4fca...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> at 08:47:10 on Thu, 7 Jan 2010, RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com>
> remarked:
> >The romans had no zero in their number system so the year went
> >straigth from1BCto 1AD, didn't it?
>
> The Romans probably never numbered anything based on the Christian
> concept of "BC/AD", because the first recorded usage is apparently
> 531AD, when the Roman Empire was seriously waning.
>
> They numbered their years based on an assumed date for the
> foundation of Rome in what today we'd call 753BC.
Hence my reference several dates ago to AUC dates! "ab urbe condita" -
from the founding of the city - IIRC. It's a long time since I studied
Latin.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Brian Watson
I hear some young Scots are getting a taste of Everest Base Camp conditions
at -21C last night.
:-)
Jules
> I hear some young Scots are getting a taste of Everest Base Camp conditions
> at -21C last night.
>
> :-)
I wonder if that includes windchill? Those sorts of temps are about
typical for here (it's -8F out at the mo, which is -22C), and don't pose
much of a problem if you have the right clothing for them.
But it's the windchill that's the killer - most of the time it's not that
windy here, but when it picks up it'll get into any tiny gap in clothing
and make your face go completely numb in no time flat, and taking stuff
that cold into your lungs can be painful. Doesn't take much for the
windchill temps to hit -40 or more.
I imagined Everest being a rather breezy environment, hence -21C seems
surprisingly high!
cheers
Jules
Espen H. Koht
Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:43:16 +0000, Brian Watson wrote:
> > I hear some young Scots are getting a taste of Everest Base Camp conditions
> > at -21C last night.
> >
> > :-)
>
> I wonder if that includes windchill?
It would be none-sense if it did. You can't substitute empirical
measurements with arbitrary measures of 'feeling':
<http://www.slate.com/id/2159370/nav/tap1/> sums it up.
Paul Rudin
It's a little unfair to describe windchill as an arbitray measure of
feeling. It describes a real phenomenon that's tricky to quantify. At a
given temparature you'll need to expend more energy to keep you body
temparature constant the greater the wind speed. Of course the extent to
which this is so depends on how well insulated you are...
Ben C
It could be easily quantified as rate of heat loss in W/m^2 for a bluff
body object at a temperature of 34C.
This would be the rate at which you would lose heat if you weren't
wearing any clothes at all, but would be perfectly meaningful for
purposes of comparison.
Using this measure it would also turn out that metal objects were colder
than wooden ones at the same temperature (which they are).
Espen H. Koht
Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote:
> "Espen H. Koht" <eh...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
> > In article <pan.2010.01.08....@remove.this.gmail.com>,
> > Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:43:16 +0000, Brian Watson wrote:
> >> > I hear some young Scots are getting a taste of Everest Base Camp
> >> > conditions
> >> > at -21C last night.
> >> >
> >> > :-)
> >>
> >> I wonder if that includes windchill?
> >
> > It would be none-sense if it did. You can't substitute empirical
> > measurements with arbitrary measures of 'feeling':
> > <http://www.slate.com/id/2159370/nav/tap1/> sums it up.
>
> It's a little unfair to describe windchill as an arbitray measure of
> feeling. It describes a real phenomenon that's tricky to quantify.
It's not arguing against windchill as a measure, but more about how that
measure is expressed.
Mark Ayliffe
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> illuminated us with:
> On 2010-01-08, Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Espen H. Koht" <eh...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
>>
>>> In article <pan.2010.01.08....@remove.this.gmail.com>,
>>> Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder if that includes windchill?
>>>
>>> It would be none-sense if it did. You can't substitute empirical
>>> measurements with arbitrary measures of 'feeling':
>>> <http://www.slate.com/id/2159370/nav/tap1/> sums it up.
>>
>> It's a little unfair to describe windchill as an arbitray measure of
>> feeling. It describes a real phenomenon that's tricky to quantify.
>>
>> At a given temparature you'll need to expend more energy to keep you
>> body temparature constant the greater the wind speed. Of course the
>> extent to which this is so depends on how well insulated you are...
>
> It could be easily quantified as rate of heat loss in W/m^2 for a bluff
> body object at a temperature of 34C.
No it couldn't because that wouldn't include the evaporative
component. Which at some temperatures is probably considerable.
--
Mark
Real email address | Sometimes it's easier to beg for forgiveness
is mark at | than ask for permission.
ayliffe dot org |
Jules
> In article <pan.2010.01.08....@remove.this.gmail.com>,
> Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:43:16 +0000, Brian Watson wrote:
>> > I hear some young Scots are getting a taste of Everest Base Camp conditions
>> > at -21C last night.
>> >
>> > :-)
>>
>> I wonder if that includes windchill?
>
> It would be none-sense if it did. You can't substitute empirical
> measurements with arbitrary measures of 'feeling':
I'm not so sure. There's certainly no global formula, but weather services
in different regions all seem to pick their own standard (i.e whatever
formula they use, they stick to).
Whilst quoting something with windchill doesn't give a definitive value
that makes complete sense everywhere, I think it's still useful in
conveying a general idea of how cold something feels.
If someone tells me it's -35 or -45 or -50 with windchill (depending
on formula used) when there's a base temperature of -20 (if it were a
still day), I'm going to take extra precautions when I'm out, or think
twice about going out at all. The actual value matters little, it's just
"sufficiently large to warrant doing things differently" and I'm glad it
gets reported even if there is some variation in the figures.
cheers
Jules
Jules
OK, I should have read that before I posted :-) But I think you're wrong
in saying "It would be none-sense if it did" in response to my earlier
post; -21C struck me as "surprisingly warm" - but if there's another 20 or
30 or 40 or 50 degrees of windchill on top of that, depending on whatever
formula they use at Everest base camps, *then* I can go "brrr, that's
cold".
I really don't know what conditions to expect on somewhere like Everest -
but -21C just felt a lot warmer than I'd expect for somewhere snowy and
with little shelter from vegetation.
cheers
Jules
Brian Watson
Last March, it was -25C when I got to Base Camp, plus there was a blizzard
in full swing which meant the windchill made it feel a good deal colder.
No idea what the windspeed was, because we didn't hang about long enough to
get a windspeed reading.
I'd guess 30-40mph because the snow was coming down almost sideways, and it
felt VERY fast, but I might be way off in my estimate.
Still, I took my gloves, buff and sunglasses off for the photos.
I mean, it's not every day etc etc...
Brian Watson
> I really don't know what conditions to expect on somewhere like
> Everest - but -21C just felt a lot warmer than I'd expect for
> somewhere snowy and with little shelter from vegetation.
Just as heat in Africa is drier (less humid) than here and so is easier to
bear, I found -21/25C (plus whatever effect windchill adds to that) quite
bearable at Everest Base Camp.
I didn't actually go on to the moutain itself last year - I'm saving meself!
:-)
That may have something to do with the driness or otherwise of the air (what
there is of it) up there.
Fevric J. Glandules
> Just as heat in Africa is drier
It varies enormously.
Brian Watson
Yes, of course. I wasn't thinking.
I've only been to a dry part.
Brian Watson
> Try any late afternoon in December in Namibia - the thunderstorms
> start in the early evening, although not much rain gets to ground
> level.
>
> Only exceeded in discomfort by the arrival back at Heathrow at 5:30am
> on the 24th in sleet and with no cold weather clothing :(
Eew, I know THAT feeling.
I got back to Heathrow from Kili at a similar hour, then had to change
trains (still clad in all my tropical gear) on a FREEZING cold Stratford
station.