john at jaharrison.me.uk
Wed Mar 22 10:43:24 UTC 2017
<HE1PR06MB1308CAAA0129BB9BA6ED1F9CB23C0 at HE1PR06MB1308.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>,
"King, Peter R" <peter.king at imperial.ac.uk> wrote:
> > just some old work repeated in a different place.
> ... it begs the question of what constitutes a piece of work?
That is the key question, and it is hard to give a single formulaic answer
because there are many different ways that people see features as being
the same or related. For example the 3-pull dodge in St Clements Minor
becomes a 5 pull dodge in Major but there is an obvious logic because it
spans the whole lead.
Someone poured scorn on the idea of zero, one, two, etc wrong dodges in
Bristol but given that it it s Surprise method, and given the move to
higher stages opens up extra space that has to be filled with something,
dodging is the natural default, the same as it is when filling the extra
space in Cambridge or Yorkshire. It's as natural as adding extra hunting
in the spaces in Plain Bob. With Bristol the boundary of the new space is
backward hunting so the dodges that fill it are naturally wrong dodges.
If you think of the 3-4 work in Double Oxford as 'Yorkshire places' you
won't find it in Major or Royal. But think of it as court places with
dodging padded out to the lead / half-lead and it all fits perfectly.
Show the grids of Minor, Major and Royal to any green zone ringer and I
bet they can see the pattern.
The reality is that relatedness of the work and/or structure between
stages is real and makes sense to ringers. But there isn't always any
relatedness and sometimes there are more than one ways to relate things.
So we need a regime that supports people who want to reflect relations
between stages in method names, within the overall framework for naming
More information about the ringing-theory