> > Roman is actually quite correct here. If I may employ that apparently > hated tool of linguists and scholars, the dictionary; > > > > trans·lit·er·ate (trns-lt-rt, trnz-) > > tr.v. trans·lit·er·at·ed, trans·lit·er·at·ing, trans·lit·er·ates > > > > To represent (letters or words) in the corresponding characters of > another alphabet. > > > > Roman's analogy was quite correct in explaining the differences between > tablature and staff notation, at > > least as far as it went given that, in simplest terms, staff notation > directly represents notes on a scale while tablature represents finger > positions on > a string for a specific instrument, in this case the lute. > But the alphabet analogy is quite apropos. Thanks. And it just occurred to me that there is another little aspect to staff notation that makes it another form of tabulature. There is NO GRAPHIC INDICATION in staff notation that there are semitones between E and F or B and C, and we are only aware of these semitones because of convention. In other words the representation of the scale in notation is just as meaningless in the abstract as any tabulature. Just a thought....... RT
To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
