graham at changeringing.co.uk
Sat Jul 26 23:52:16 UTC 2008
> Well, I have suggested that Grandsire is better defined
> as a (what was it?) 'differential hunter'. ie the bobbed
> block Is a structure symmetric about the treble's lead
I think that this would be difficult for people to accept,
as it changes the way people have learnt Grandsire and its
calls for a very long time.
> in each case it is possible to encounter what would have
> been recognised as a 'New' or 'Inverse' variation, which
> obviously (to me) needs to be defined simply because it
> could exist in a true composition and since it could exist,
> needs to be named to distinguish it from what else is being
Defining "New" or "Inverse" Grandsire, to me is much less of a problem.
While I understand the argument that it is still Grandsire, people have
learnt Grandsire with a primary hunt unaffected by calls, and a secondary
hunt affected by them. This results in perceived asymmetry. Using "Inverse"
to describe double hunt methods or single hunt asymmetric methods being rung
backwards seems a reasonable convention to allow you to splice them
I suppose that a counter argument is that this convention is not obviously
extensible to handle the equivalent situation in methods with more than two
With regard to extension, we need a programmable algorithm as Don has
requested. We then need to accept that any extension that cannot be codified
in a consistent universal way by the algorithm will have to given a
different name. There is nothing to stop one calling a non-conforming
extension a similar name, so this is not really a significant constraint.
More information about the ringing-theory