[r-t] Candidate definition #10
ted.steele at tesco.net
Wed Aug 13 10:09:14 UTC 2008
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
> 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
“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.
“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.
More information about the ringing-theory