Wow! Thanks for all the sources--and the enlightening Latin discussion! I was able to find examples of the missing Funk and Walker do, re, and ti heads, so that's the most pressing issue done with. I'll begin writing the proposal for those ones, but I'll hold out sending it before we get the other points clear.
Firstly, none of the corpora (aha!) you provided or ones I found myself seemed to present both mirrored versions of mi in the same document, as Massive Lion claimed on the original Google Code archive should be the case depending on stem direction at least in Funk's system. I'd be hard pressed to make a case for our mirrored Aikin and up/down Funk variants if I can't show them in action. In addition, I could not find anywhere in the corpora an example of a whole notehead being distinct from its corresponding half notehead in any style. In our own Emmentaler font, only Walker's do, re, fa, and ti have differences, being that the whole notes always appear as if they were the down-stem variants of the half notes. If the only difference between whole and half notes is forced "stem" direction, it may make more sense just to automatically force "stem" direction within LilyPond and stick to SMuFL's white/black specification for the glyphs themselves. Why ask fontsmiths to duplicate so many glyphs when a scoring program can get the job done far more easily? More thoughts/examples would be appreciated, Owen On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:42 PM David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > Jean Abou Samra <[email protected]> writes: > > > Le 22/07/2020 à 03:32, Aaron Hill a écrit : > > > >> On 2020-07-21 5:39 pm, Owen Lamb wrote: > >>> corpuses (corpori?) > >> > >> Off-topic: "corpora" is the plural in English. Though while > >> "corpuses" is not technically correct, I would have no problem > >> understanding it. > > > > Yes, Latin would prescribe corpora as the plural of corpus, oris due > > to it being a neutral noun − although the relevance of this rule is > > questionable since in a Latin sentence, it would also depend on how > > this word is used. > > > > Funny story about a sort-of congressman opposing a draft bill: “Non > > possumus! he emphatically claimed, And I'll add, Non possumi! because > > I'm not the only one thinking so.” > > > > Tentative translation: “We cannot! And I'll add, we cannots, because > > I'm not…”. > > > > Hope humor helps things progress, > > Jean > > Frankly, never mind the Latin. I get the shakes when many native > English speakers try their hands at Early Modern English, the variant > often used by Shakespeare and also typical for the KJV Bible > translation, and completely mess up things like speaketh, speakest, > thou, thee, thine; basically picking between older forms randomly. > > -- > David Kastrup >
