JI precision level capture zone boundary defining EDA step names (besides tina)

User avatar
ᴄᴍʟᴏᴇɢᴄᴍʟᴜɪɴ
Site Admin
Posts: 1633
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:10 pm
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Real Name: Douglas Blumeyer (he/him/his)
Contact:

JI precision level capture zone boundary defining EDA step names (besides tina)

Post by ᴄᴍʟᴏᴇɢᴄᴍʟᴜɪɴ »

I'm curious if anyone has ever needed or proposed names for steps of the key EDOs used for defining boundaries of JI precision level capture zones, besides the "tina".

If the 8539-EDO step of the extreme precision level is called a tina, perhaps the other precision levels could take other female given names. The "secor", another irrational interval related to Sagittal by virtue of George, of course, takes its name from a surname (of a specific person who was male), and it's not even an EDO step, so it's certainly not the same, but it's at least another signal that person names may be good for equal divisions of rationals. The only other named big EDO step I can think of is a tredek which is not a person's name... but oh well.

I bring this up because I experienced a brief episode of confusion wherein I conflated the tina, an irrational value, with schisminas, schismas, kleismas, commas, and the like, which are all rational. I'm not sure, but it might actually prevent confusion if we had names for other key irrational pitch intervals, so that "tina" wouldn't be this awkward, barely acknowledged exception, but actually a member of a separate well-recognized category.

I'm not suggesting that we develop a parallel size classification for steps of EDOs, e.g. "anything smaller than 8000-EDO is a tina". That would make some sense, but I'm not sure if its usefulness would be worth the effort of agreeing on the boundary-defining EDOs (akin to the square roots of 3-limit commas used to define boundaries of the rational size classes). I believe it would be better just to focus on names for 2460-EDO etc.

While we're at it, "JI precision level capture zone boundary defining EDO" is quite the mouthful. It might be helpful if we had a pithier of referring to them. I'm looking toward the documentation for Sagittal for this.

Update: I've noticed on the thread about the JI Notation Spreadsheet that @Dave Keenan refers to "the 140th mina" of the extreme JI precision level. It seems like in that case he is using "mina" as equivalent to one step of its capture zone boundary defining EDO. In the case of the extreme precision level, this works out alright, because :`::|: is 0.423¢ and 1 step of 233-EDA is 0.488¢, so that's close enough. But this breaks down already at the very high precision level, because one schisma (1.954¢) is not close enough to one step of 58-EDA (1.960¢). Well that's what I typed but those numbers are actually even closer, closer still considering them proportionally. But why then does the standard Very High Precision JI Boundaries give 1.3 as the address for :'::|: ? I guess it's just so it can get squeezed in there between :.::)|: and :)|: .

So then I guess actually we may want to take this all the other direction and ensure that we have a rational version of a tina. I know we do from this post as 121:1225n but it's not 3-limit which isn't great (perhaps you could find one by summing together some of the unnoticeable 3-limit commas). And then I guess it's worth pointing out that we use 'mina as an abbreviation for schismina in general, but we also seem to use it specifically to refer to the 455n. Or did I get that wrong and "mina" only refers to the 455n while schismina is the size category? Because if so then maybe we're already onto something, where "mina" refers to either the rational 455n or its step of 233-EDA form, and "tina" refers to either the rational ?t (I guess it would need its own category and to be signified with a little 't')or its step of 809-EDA, and then maybe something like "isma" refers to either the rational 5s or its step of 58-EDA form.

By the way, as I wrote this out, I switched from EDO to EDA, because I'm pretty sure somewhere at some point I saw Dave say something like that they started out defining capture zones by EDOs before they realized eventually it was EDAs that did a better job. But I can't seem to find this. In any case, EDAs are definitely what they're split up into in the JI Notation Sheet, so we'll go with that.

User avatar
Dave Keenan
Site Admin
Posts: 1954
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:59 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: JI precision level capture zone boundary defining EDA step names (besides tina)

Post by Dave Keenan »

Post by cmloegcmluin » Mon May 25, 2020 8:37 am

So is it the case that one step of 58-EDA can also be, without disclaimer, referred to as a "schisma"?

And one step of 47-EDA is actually pretty close to a schisma plus a (schis)mina, so could it be called a "mamina"?

And one step of 21-EDA is not super far from :|(: ... when we use the word "kleisma" outside of a specific kleisma, could it refer to a step of 21-EDA?

User avatar
Dave Keenan
Site Admin
Posts: 1954
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:59 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: JI precision level capture zone boundary defining EDA step names (besides tina)

Post by Dave Keenan »

Post by Dave Keenan » Mon May 25, 2020 6:43 pm

Yes, in the context of discussing the EDAs that correspond to the JI precision levels, it's fine to use tina for 1 step of 809-EDA, mina for one step of 233-EDA and schisma for one step of 58-EDA. I can claim that neither tina nor mina is the name of a size category, although "mina" was derived by abbreviating "schismina". That requires that we not refer to say 5:19n (1216/1215) as the 5:19-mina, but only as the 5:19-schismina.

As you kind of pointed out, "schisma" only works as both a size category and a step of 58-EDA because historically "THE schisma" is the rational interval we call the 5-schisma, which is extremely close in size to the irrational 1/58th of an apotome.

This doesn't work with "kleisma" and 21-EDA because historically "THE kleisma" is the 5⁶-kleisma which is about 8.1 cents. You can however refer to 1 step of 21-EDA as a "quarter-comma" as in "quarter-comma meantone", being 1/4 of the 5-comma.

I'm unaware of any such name for 1/47-EDA. For "mamina" to make sense, we'd have to already be calling the 1/58th-apotome schisma a "ma". But this seems too easily confused with the "mi" and "mo" syllables for a mina.

User avatar
ᴄᴍʟᴏᴇɢᴄᴍʟᴜɪɴ
Site Admin
Posts: 1633
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:10 pm
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Real Name: Douglas Blumeyer (he/him/his)
Contact:

Re: JI precision level capture zone boundary defining EDA step names (besides tina)

Post by ᴄᴍʟᴏᴇɢᴄᴍʟᴜɪɴ »

Dave Keenan wrote: ↑
Mon May 25, 2020 1:43 am
Yes, in the context of discussing the EDAs that correspond to the JI precision levels, it's fine to use tina for 1 step of 809-EDA, mina for one step of 233-EDA and schisma for one step of 58-EDA. I can claim that neither tina nor mina is the name of a size category, although "mina" was derived by abbreviating "schismina". That requires that we not refer to say 5:19n (1216/1215) as the 5:19-mina, but only as the 5:19-schismina.
Got it.

So when I said
And then I guess it's worth pointing out that we use 'mina as an abbreviation for schismina in general, but we also seem to use it specifically to refer to the 455n. Or did I get that wrong and "mina" only refers to the 455n while schismina is the size category?
I was closer the second time: "schismina" is the size category, and is the one used in comma names such as the 455-schismina (where "mina" cannot be used), and "mina" only refers to a step of 233-EDA.
As you kind of pointed out, "schisma" only works as both a size category and a step of 58-EDA because historically "THE schisma" is the rational interval we call the 5-schisma, which is extremely close in size to the irrational 1/58th of an apotome.
Emphasis on the "kind of" ;)

So "tina" and "mina" are unambiguous, referring to nothing other than irrational EDA steps. "Schisma" is ambiguous though. If we really needed to, maybe we could distinguish them as the "just schisma" and the "EDA-schisma". But the necessity should be rare.
This doesn't work with "kleisma" and 21-EDA because historically "THE kleisma" is the 5⁶-kleisma which is about 8.1 cents.
I see. I didn't get the picture quite right from reading viewtopic.php?p=582#p582. I see now that an internet search turns up no other hits for "complex Pythagorean kleisma", "complex kleisma", or "Pythagorean kleisma" besides that post. So our size-category-defining 3-limit kleisma [ 317 -200 ⟩ is not THE kleisma by a long stretch. It'd have to beat out both the 5⁶-kleisma (which is not represented by a symbol in Sagittal) and the septimal kleisma (see here, here, and here) (what we call the 25/7k in Sagittal and represent with a :'::|(: ).
You can however refer to 1 step of 21-EDA as a "quarter-comma" as in "quarter-comma meantone", being 1/4 of the 5-comma.
Good observation.

If we ever wanted a single two-syllable word for it akin to tina and mina, then, could we call it a "quacom"? Meant to invoke quantom. Not QualComm. I'm not going to force the issue, though as I said in the OP, I do think that having names for all of these important EDA steps could help forestall conflation of the tina with the others.
I'm unaware of any such name for 1/47-EDA. For "mamina" to make sense, we'd have to already be calling the 1/58th-apotome schisma a "ma". But this seems too easily confused with the "mi" and "mo" syllables for a mina.
Ma mamina!

Yeah yeah yeah, I agree...

Well, 1°47-EDA is close to a ninth of the same comma. So that one could be a "nincom", as in "ninth-comma", and "you're a nincompoop if you're using the High precision level". :lol:

User avatar
ᴄᴍʟᴏᴇɢᴄᴍʟᴜɪɴ
Site Admin
Posts: 1633
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:10 pm
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Real Name: Douglas Blumeyer (he/him/his)
Contact:

Re: JI precision level capture zone boundary defining EDA step names (besides tina)

Post by ᴄᴍʟᴏᴇɢᴄᴍʟᴜɪɴ »

In another conversation with @Dave Keenan I needed to refer to each of these EDA step names, and I just went ahead and tried out the above proposed names. He gave this tangential feedback there, and we ended up having a parallel conversation about them for a bit before I realized we should resurface it here:
Dave Keenan wrote: I'm sorry to be a nincom-pooper, but don't you think they need to end in an "a" like all the others?

I think George called some EDA degree a "nina" in one of those emails I recently dumped in the 37-limit topic, because of some association with 9.
cmloegcmluin wrote: Yeah, [all names ending in "a"]'d be preferable. How about quina instead of quacom? It reminds me of a Quine atom. Which makes sense since it's one of the larger steps, so it's not yet subatomic.

Found [George's email]. "nina" was for 2151-EDA, since it was ~9x of 233-EDA. Since we're unlikely to use 2151-EDA anymore, perhaps "nina" could work for the 47-EDA step, again since it's a ninth-comma.
Dave Keenan wrote: [Quina instead of quacom]'s just fina (pronounced feena :)).
Dave Keenan's simulation of George Secor wrote: You're welcome to ["nina" as the name for a step of 47-EDA], Doug.
cmloegcmluin wrote: Alright: quina, nina, schisma, mina, tina, and maybe neutrina it is.
Dave Keenan wrote: Hmm. Now that I see that list: How about only those that are schisminas end in "ina" and the others have the same ending as their size category? I think that would make them the "queisma" (Elmer Fudd's favourite interval) and the "ninisma" or "nisma".
cmloegcmluin wrote: Omigosh. I have been pronouncing it /ˈklɑɪz mə/, thinking it had German etymology (maybe the "sch" in schisma threw me off). Greek pronunciation rules say it would be /ˈkleɪz mə/ to rhythm with "kwazy". It took a Looney Tunes reference to bring it to my attention. Well, I won't soon forget it, I suppose!

I do like them matching the endings of the size category names.

I wish they could all simply be abbreviations of the size category names, like 'mina is. That would lead to eisma, and isma.

You know, actually, I think I prefer it if they could call have the same distinct ending, because one of my original goals for this topic was that these non-JI intervals be clearly distinct from the JI size category names. It doesn't matter to me that the ending we use traces its origins back to a specific one of the JI size category names, schismina, and that the ending was probably just a diminutive suffix on schisma. Another benefit of sharing the same ending is that you could use said ending to refer to these intervals as a collective.

So then that would lead to klina, and schina. Ugh, I don't really like those.

And either way, if we bind ourselves to the size category names, we get stuck because two of them have the same size category (I mean, minas and tinas are both schisminas, I guess, but those two are already pretty well established by now, no need to worry about them).

So I gave up on this last night... but then my first thought when I hopped out of bed this morning was a pretty good one I think. Now I know I'm the one who pushes to treat the corresponding symbol set as a secondary name for the precision levels, trying to rally folks around Medium, High, Very High, Extreme, and Insane rather than Athenian, Promethean, Herculean, Olympian, and Magrathean. But how about:

21-EDA step: athena (technically should be athenina to follow the pattern, but... c'mon, "athena"! and it's the first one, which works with it starting with 'a')
47-EDA step: methena (promethena for long)
58-EDA step: lena (herculena for long, and note how 'l' precedes 'm' by one letter)
233-EDA step: mina, of course, or if you want, pina (olympina for long)
809-EDA step: tina, of course, or if you want, grathena (magrathena for long)

When we refer to these step sizes, we are almost certainly working on the corresponding precision level, anyway, so why not reduce the overhead of translating? Plus I think it's appealing how you just rearrange the "-ean" and "-ian" endings into "-ena" and "-ina" (they would all be pronounced the same).

And so then collectively these intervals would be known as the "inas". For fun, a retroactive acronymization could be "Irrational Neutral Allocator".
So let's continue the conversation from here. I believe Dave already has some concerns about the "ina" scheme of names.

User avatar
Dave Keenan
Site Admin
Posts: 1954
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:59 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: JI precision level capture zone boundary defining EDA step names (besides tina)

Post by Dave Keenan »

I think "athena" is OK. But "methena" and "lena" fail to connect for me, with Promethean and Herculean. "Methena" sounds a little like "magrathena". It seems that to be consistent with "athena", they would need to be "promena" and "hercena" (or "herculena"). But a "promena" sounds like a kind of "mina" — an early or rudimentary one — which, I'm guessing, is why you didn't suggest it.

But since you prefer the descriptive names, and I know I should too — what's wrong with:

Precision  EDA degree    Additional 
level      name (ina)    mnemonic
----------------------------------------------
Medium     medina
High       hyina [Edit: agreed below to spell it "highina"]
Ultra      ultrina or schisma
Extreme    mina         (Maximal precision)
Insane     tina         (Tremendous precision)
?

And before you ask: No, I couldn't find any synonym beginning with "t", among several dozen for "insane" and "insane person".

A better backronym for "ina" might be: Irrational Nth of an Apotome.

User avatar
ᴄᴍʟᴏᴇɢᴄᴍʟᴜɪɴ
Site Admin
Posts: 1633
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:10 pm
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Real Name: Douglas Blumeyer (he/him/his)
Contact:

Re: JI precision level capture zone boundary defining EDA step names (besides tina)

Post by ᴄᴍʟᴏᴇɢᴄᴍʟᴜɪɴ »

Yes! This is great stuff. I wonder how I managed to apologize for using the Greek names instead of the descriptive level names, but never thought to just use the descriptive ones. :facepalm:

My only suggestion would be that I think “highina” is better than “hyina”. The evocation of “hyena” is still there in the pronunciation so “hyina” feels a bit awkward and on the nose (especially since hyenas have nothing to do with this). And “highina” is easier to remember because “hyina” requires remembering that there’s a translation from “high” to “hy” whereas the others are simple abbreviations (“medium” to “med” and “ultra” to “ultr”). If you understand English pronunciation already then “highina” still looks like it should be pronounced / haɪˈi nə /, and there’s even precedent in words like “sighing”. I don’t lament the extra couple total letters. And I think “highina” looks nicer.

Backronym – nice word. Re: “irrational nth of an apotome”, it binds us to divisions of the apotome, which may bite us later if we decide to use zeta peaks or EDOs or whatever else instead. And the “irrational” part seems confusingly redundant if it’s already focused on as an “nth of an apotome.” My suggestion “irrational neutral allocator” said a lot more, I think: irrational, because that’s important to avoid the JI commas these things are designed to bound ever finding themselves in an ambiguous spot; neutral, because they’re evenly spaced to give no special preference to the selection of commas; and allocators, because their purpose is to allocate pitch space to capture zones. That all said, your suggestion is obviously easier to remember! And also, no one asked for this mnemonic (no one even asked for these -ina intervals to be named, besides me!) so we could provide neither, or both, unless you disagree with the reasoning behind mine.

I just looked it up and "hyper" would be the Greek equivalent of "ultra". But I don't think we need to make all terms in Sagittal use Greek etymology over Latin. That might be a... toxic constraint. And "ultra" is nicer because of the unique initial letter. And who would want both "highinas"/"hyinas" and "hypinas"?

User avatar
Dave Keenan
Site Admin
Posts: 1954
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:59 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: JI precision level capture zone boundary defining EDA step names (besides tina)

Post by Dave Keenan »

OK. I reject "hyina", but am undecided between "highina" or "hiina". Happy to go with whichever you prefer.

I prefer no backronym at all for "-ina", over the to-me-strained (I still couldn't remember it and had to look it up) "irrational neutral allocator". I would never have figured out myself, in what sense it was neutral, or an allocator.

User avatar
ᴄᴍʟᴏᴇɢᴄᴍʟᴜɪɴ
Site Admin
Posts: 1633
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2020 3:10 pm
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Real Name: Douglas Blumeyer (he/him/his)
Contact:

Re: JI precision level capture zone boundary defining EDA step names (besides tina)

Post by ᴄᴍʟᴏᴇɢᴄᴍʟᴜɪɴ »

Hiina, eh. Good suggestion. Worth considering...

I still prefer highina though.

So let's go with highina and no backronym mnemonic, then. Nice!

User avatar
Dave Keenan
Site Admin
Posts: 1954
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:59 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: JI precision level capture zone boundary defining EDA step names (besides tina)

Post by Dave Keenan »

Agreed. I note that the "backronym" is not the retroactive acronym. It is the mnemonic phrase.

Post Reply