[r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

King, Peter R peter.king at imperial.ac.uk
Thu Aug 7 11:42:38 UTC 2008

>  I don't think the solution for this is to recognise as a peal
> types of ringing that I (and I suspect lots of ringers) would consider
> to be any old rubbish.

I'm sorry I'm on holiday so have appalling bad internet access and may
be repeating what many others have said as I haven't been able to open
the huge number of messages.

But we are trying to get away from what some committee or other select
group considers to be "any old rubbish". I have rung peals which I have
considered to be rubbish because they were badly rung, do we accept
them? Personally I think Stedman is rubbish, should I try to get this
banned? Rather I think we should take the view of the Oxford English
Dictionary which just aims to catalogue words and their etymology rather
than put forward any value judgement on whether or not is a good word or
not. The OED use the concept of whether or not a word is in "general
usage" by how often it is used in some kind of recognised written form.
We would need to be a bit more generous than that (in that numerous
methods are rung once only and so not in general usage - but most method
types are generally used). So if people really did want to ring minimus
covered by 12 then who am I to stop them? However, I think we do need
some kind of definitions - like it should be rung on bells! But I think
these should be as minimal as possible.

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list