[r-t] Definition of a call
lists at simpleigh.com
Thu Jun 9 12:55:29 UTC 2011
This HTML email business is overrated. Anyway:
> > There's no implication that the PN would run in reverse in the rule as
> > now formed, as far as I can tell. The PN would continue in its usual
> > form from where the "cut" had ended.
> In the last paragraph above which you kindly included, please consider
> what I said :-
> "If the method is palindromic about the path of the treble then
> presumably if the treble continues her regular hunting path it would
> still appear to be the same method with some leads lengthened and others
> shortened. but if the method is not pallindromic then the inevitable flow
> of PN running in reverse would yield a different method"
I don't understand how you get from "by omitting consecutive changes" to
"the inevitable flow of PN running in reverse". It's obvious that you might
get to something which is a different method (e.g. Little Bob from Plain
Bob), but the point is that the rule allows you to better describe how
a composition may be called - you can remove any set of changes and indeed
different sets of changes each time. There's no mention of PN running in
reverse - you just miss out a chunk of the method - or any mention of the
treble continuing its plain-hunting path (unless you miss out an
appropriate selection of changes).
> > If you didn’t insist that “changing primary hunt bells in Grandsire
> > triples = a ‘bob’ or whatever,” then how would you expect the ringers
> > to know when they were supposed to effect the change?
> Presumably as rung by the St.Chad's ringers the conductor announces the
> new primary hunt to effect the change over - it ain't a bob so why
> complicate the issue & pretend that it is?
Nobody said it was a bob. "A call is a means of ...". It's clearly a "call"
as something is called out and the ringing changes! Announcing the new
primary hunt is effectively the same as missing out changes in order to
arrange to restart the lead.
More information about the ringing-theory