[r-t] Decisions

edward martin edward.w.martin at gmail.com
Thu Jul 24 19:52:21 UTC 2008

2008/7/24 Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>:

> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Ben Willetts <ben at benjw.org.uk> wrote:
> > Robin Woolley:
> >> I once rang a 720 of PB6 in a tower which had the line clearly
> displayed.
> >> My non-compliant peal, if you like - or the last I can remember.
> >
> > However many Decisions you rescind, I don't think claiming that a 720 is
> a
> > peal is going to be accepted.  :-)
> Back in the days Eddie Martin likes to harken to it was called a peal.
 The OED may be wrong (it's not unknown) but I think that they suggest the
word you need is:
*2.* *fig.* *to harp upon, on *(*[image: {dag}]of*)*, a, one, the same *
(etc.)* string*: to repeat a statement or dwell on a subject to a wearisome
or tedious length.
*1513* MORE <http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-m4.html#more> in
Grafton *Chron.* (1568) II. 773 The Cardinall made a countenaunce to the
Lord Haward that he should harpe no more upon that string. *c1526*
*Disput. Purgat.* (1829) 117 See how he harpeth all of one string.
*1625* *Gonsalvio's
Sp. Inquis.* 13 They are sure still harping on their old string. *1685* *Refl.
Baxter* 25 He harps much upon that jarring String. *1837*
*Fr. Rev.* II. V. vi. (1872) 198 Harping mainly on the religious string.

    *3.* Hence, *to harp on*, *upon*, (*[image: {dag}]of*, *about*): to
dwell wearisomely upon in speech or writing. *1562* *Apol. Priv.
Masse*(1850) 19 The great matter you harp on.
*1602* SHAKES. <http://dictionary.oed.com/help/bib/oed2-s2.html#shakes> *
Ham.* II. ii. 189 Still harping on my daughter. *1634* SIR T.
*Trav.* 103 This word revenge he still harpt upon. *1712*
*Spect.* No. 504 [image: {page}]2 Ever harping upon things they ought not to
allude to. *1837*
*Venetia* II. x, Still harping of her father.

 to 'harken to' appears to be an old way of saying to listen to. ;-)

Actually I am very interested in all of change-ringing's history & feel that
ringing in Stedman's day was not unlike ringing in the years covered by my
life span in that in both instances, ringers were trying out new stuff. In
his day, it was all bran new. If it  caught on. as per his principle and (oh
dear) Grandsire & plain Bob and Treble Bob, then it stuck.  If it didn't,
like so many Plain Change methods & Jumping changes, then it didn;t stick.
We have yet to see how permament are Variable Cover,  Differentials, &
Cyclic etc.
>From the days of William Shipway, who tried to catalogue and pigeon-hole the
various methods rung in his day, to modern Central Council Decisions &
definitions, it seems to me that there has been a frustrating struggle
between what ringers preder & what the 'Authority' says that they ought to
prefer. Time & again, the Central Council has tried gradually to catagorise
the stuff we ring, which in the main has been even bell methods. I think
they have done a pretty good job on the whole BUT there are anomolies which
just do not make sense, particularly in trying to have a Universal code book
for both even & odd-bell methods on all numbers.
As someone just recently remarked, he thinks of a method as being a round
block and obviously, merely starting with rounds at a different place in the
round block does not yield a new method, but, as I have demonstrated it is
very possible, in a true touch to have both forward & inverse structure of
the self same method in the same peal. From a practical point of view they
are NOT the same method, & some indication as to which  variation is to be
rung really is neccesary. In harping on the same wearisome string, I've
tried (apparently in vain) to suggest that the root of the problem lies in
the definition of what are currently termed 'Twin Hunt Methods'.

Eddie Martin.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20080724/5911911f/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list