[r-t] Candidate definition #10

[Ted Steele]

Don Morrison wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Ted Steele <ted.steele at tesco.net> wrote:
>   
>> "each and every" seems to preclude variable cover. Is this your
>> intention?
>>     
>
> No, I don't believe it does preclude variable cover.

Don, I am afraid that your choice of words does not readily convey the 
meaning that you intend to an ordinary bloke in the pub such as me.

In relation to blocks, consider: “Every bell strikes exactly once in 
each row.”

And

“No bell strikes *except* as part of *exactly one* of the rows”.

This seems to mean, obviously wrongly that every bell shall strike in 
exactly one of the rows in the block, i.e. not more than one row and 
thus there is only one row in the block! Why not say “Every bell strikes 
exactly once in each row and no bell strikes except as part of a row”? 
This would also deal with your wish to stop the tenor dinging a few 
times on its own between blocks.

Also:

“One or more bells may ring in the same position in each and every row" 
of a block.

To me this implies that one or more bells may remain in the position 
where they started and stay there throughout the block. In relation to 
the last position in the row that defines cover as we know it but it 
precludes variable cover. However, it does allow for more than one 
position to be “covered” i.e. the treble could “cover” the first 
position in the row while the tenor covers the final position, and they 
do that throughout the block.

I think I now see that your intention is actually to say that a position 
(just one?) in a row may be excluded from the normal change-making and 
that the bell that occupies that position can be altered during the 
touch. This would allow for variable cover but I think that it precludes 
mixed odd and even splicing where some of the block would require all of 
the positions to be involved, ie no cover.

Perhaps I still misunderstand but I think the form of words needs more 
work, that's all.

Ted