source file: mills2.txt Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 16:31:58 -0800 Subject: Other Languages' "Pure" Meaning "Just" From: Gary Morrison <71670.2576@compuserve.com> Manuel refuted my claim that there is not historical precedent for "pure" being synonymous with "just", refering to small-whole-number-ratio (SWNR) pitch relationships. (Or more specifically, I claimed only that I did not no of any such precedent.) The example he cited was a word in another language that refers to SWNR harmony, and that nominally translate to the English word "pure". (Unfortunately I deleted that message, and don't recall either the language or the word in that language. Sorry.) After reflecting on that a bit, I've decided that he translated his words incorrectly. If a word like "just" has two or more meanings, you must translate it according to the specific meaning you're using the word for. For example, the Spanish word "lengua" can have two English translations: "tongue" or "language". Although in English "tongue" is sometimes taken to mean "language", I would certainly not translate the Spanish sentence "mi lengua esta rojo" as "my language is red". Similarly, if I were translating a sentence in Spanish that uses the word "pura" to refer to SWNR tunings, I would still translate it to "just", because the sentence refers specifically to SWNR harmony, not to the generic meaning of "pure". That since the pre-existing English word for SWNR tunings is "just", and there is no previous attribution in the English language of that specific meaning to the word "pure". (Or again, none that I personally am aware of.) Understand however that I have no problems with describing just intonation as sounding pure. That's fine because it DESCRIBES just intonation, rather than devising an additional DEFINITION for "pure". Adding a new definition to the synonym stew only risks novices thinking that the two mean two subtly different things. It also can lead to confusion when attempting to use "pure" for its existing, general meaning. Consider for example this sentence: "Whereas JI uses axiomatic definitions of thirds, fourths and fifths, meantone is built purely upon a circle of fifths." Without taking "pure" and "just" as synonyms, people will correctly understand the sentence to mean that a circle of fifths is the only underlying basis behind meantone tunings. But if we accept "pure" to be synonymous with "just", then people could misinterpret that sentence to mean that meantone is synonymous with pythagorean tuning. So I personally think that we ought to accept the hand of vocabulary cards the English language deals us whenever possible. Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 09:15 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA06642; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 09:18:21 +0100 Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA06634 Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id AAA02612; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 00:18:18 -0800 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 00:18:18 -0800 Message-Id: <199701020315_MC2-E30-FA9D@compuserve.com> Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu