[r-t] Non-distinct fragments

Graham John graham at changeringing.co.uk
Mon Nov 22 10:19:59 UTC 2004

xyz wrote:

> There is a (surprisingly) low threshold at which names
> become a hindrance etc.

Yes, of course you need to learn the grids to ring the number of methods
spliced that you have been doing, but I get the impression that you would
prefer that grids should be the named units. If this were the case, not only
would you have to divide the number of methods you claim to have rung by nine,
but calling a peal would involve much more work for the conductor. 

> method name version: Ipswich, Newhall, Norfolk, King Edward,
> Queen Mary, Cambridge, Ebor, Primrose

> grid version: Cambridge over Cambridge.

> Hmm...

If Cambridge was the just the name for the grid, you would have to continously
call out the half lead and lead end notation twice a lead, so people would
know what to ring, and there would be no such thing as a plain course for
people to ring on practice nights.

Or have I misunderstood you? 


PS. If you named sections rather than grids, there would be even fewer to
worry about, providing that you don't mind making six calls per lead to join
them up.

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list