Statistics: Posted by Tenethia — Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:03 pm
]]>
The written melody being a rule by which one avoids confusing one's own singing with the other voices. I composed canons for guitars.
Some rock bands with more than one guitar have guitarists accompany each other in superposed melodies, so why not have ordinary, non-rock guitarists accompany each other with same melody in canon?
Anyone who would like to try (there is one for two guitars, one for three guitars, one for four guitars, they are not the same) is welcome to pm me. I will be happy to forward it.
Statistics: Posted by hansgeorg — Thu Sep 10, 2015 9:24 am
]]>
]]>
Since we started the conversation, I decided to do a bit of research because you don't dangle a question like that in front of a philologist and not get her to do research on it:
So the -nn- word (cannon) referring to the weapon seems to go back via French to a Romance language word meaning "tube" or "barrel". This in turn is possibly related to the word from which we get cane (as in "a stick") which originally meant something like "reed" (so cane = small hollow stick/tube; cannon = big hollow stick/tube). Cane does seem to go all the way back to Latin canna which comes from Greek kanna (which might ultimately derive from a Semitic word).
Here's the etymological entry in the OED:
Notice that until 1800, single and double -n- spellings were usedcannon
Forms: Also 15thC (chanon), 15–17thC canon.
Etymology: In 16th cent. also canon , Scottish cannoun , < French canon (14th cent. in Littré) = Provençal canon, Catalan canó, Spanish cañon , Italian cannone , lit. ‘great tube, barrel’, augmentative of canna, canne = cane n.1, reed, pipe, tube. The spellings canon and cannon occur side by side down nearly to 1800, though the latter is the more frequent after c1660
Now the single -n- word (canon) referring to an established text has a complicated origin. It seems to have been originally applied to rules or laws introduced by the Church (and is still used in that sense today - "a canon of the church"). Among these laws was the "canon of scripture" (officially established books of the bible). Later it was also used of other "canonical" lists of works by secular authors like "The canon of Shakespeare" or "The canon of Greek orators". We now use it basically as an adjective to describe an adaptation (like a film) that sticks to the original text of the author or to refer to something that exists in the imaginary world/universe established by the creator of that world/universe (like the "canon of Star War"s which they rudely decided to mess with recently
)The actual etymology of canon is apparently from Latin canon and Greek kanon which according to the etymology means "rule". But when I looked those words up (kanon isn't the normal Greek word for "rule") it actually refers to a straight rod or bar which can be used as a unit of measure (like a modern-day ruler). Which means (guess what?)....it turns out this word is related to the kanna word meaning "reed" -
So it looks like both words have a similar origin after all !!
Etymology from OED
canon
Forms: ME canoun, (ME canown), 15–17thC cannon, OE, ME– canon.
Etymology: Found in Old English as canon , < Latin canon rule, < Greek κανών rule. Early Middle English had ˈcanon , probably < Old English, and caˈnun , caˈnoun , < Old French canun , canon , the French descendant of the Latin. Senses 12 – 14 are of obscure origin; some or all may belong to cannon n.1 in French spelt canon
(etymologies taken from OED.com which is the official home of the Oxford English Dictionary online - a website not affiliated with TLC)
Statistics: Posted by Ajnos — Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:08 pm
]]>
*Canon? I'm pretty sure it's one N is you're talking about Authorized Versions of things, and two for the weapon...
I am pretty sure the Latin canon means - is it originally Greek, btw? - the kind of string you use to find or keep a direction or straightness. And with one n.As to cannons, Italian cannone would be an augmentative form of canna (reed, hence tube). Keeps two nn from canna.
Statistics: Posted by hansgeorg — Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:15 am
]]>
]]>
]]>
It occurred to me, that since all the recent Narnia movies have had feature battles that they might try to put a battle in The Silver Chair. After all, there are two possible armies that could attack Narnia: the Giants of Ettinsmoor and the Underland Gnomes.
Altered Version 1: The Giants of Ettinsmoor attack Narnia because they are angry about their Autumn Feast not being as elaborate as originally planned.
Altered Version 2: The Lady of the Green Kirtle gets further along in attacking Narnia than she should. She uses her enchanted gnomes to attack Narnia. Jill and Eustace barely stop her before she reaches the throne of Narnia.
Altered Version 3: The Gnomes attack Narnia, but stop when the witch is killed. They are so horrified that they were enchanted to fight for her, that they decide to attack the Giants of Ettinsmoor who are also attacking Narnia.
My question is: Why do we have to have a battle? Isn't the story itself interesting enough already?
I hope they do not have the gnomes attack Narnia, they are such friendly people and it would be very sad to see them fighting Narnia just because they were enchanted. We would probably also never find out about Bism, but the movie might cut that scene for time anyway. I also do not think gnomes would stick around to fight the Giants of Ettinsmoor since they are so afraid of being on the surface.
What are your thoughts?
Canon, please.
But I think with Douglas Gresham (what seems according to the latest interview/statement we saw) more in control we can expect to see a cannon based movie as he himself seemed to identify himself as one who doesn't like any changes from the book.
Statistics: Posted by Lil — Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:28 am
]]>
]]>
)Statistics: Posted by Ajnos — Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:38 pm
]]>
b) Honestly, the Underlanders' initial assumption that they'd need to prepare to defend themselves when the Witch was dead allows for some fairly impressive tension and mass-CGI movements, together with glimpses of Bism through the crack in the earth, if the main reason for a battle is to show of the filmmakers' chops. Or even a brief flashback to the initial capture of the Underlanders with more attempts at resisting the Lady than are strictly canon spliced into Golg's narration.
c) If the objective is heightened imminent-danger tension rather than letting the CGI department show their chops, perhaps glimpses of possible fates for those who do not return to the sunlit lands? Or one or more characters actually getting caught in the water and almost drowning before the others save them and full them to higher ground on the way out of Underland? Or pieces of the Lady's city collapsing around them during the exit?
Statistics: Posted by Lily of Archenland — Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:15 am
]]>
]]>
]]>
Honestly I think the journey, chase scene, mystery of the Underland and it's inhabitants, and the destruction of the witch are all that is needed for this film. Fighting the LotGK should be a battle enough, yes?
Statistics: Posted by elanorelle — Tue Jul 29, 2014 4:14 pm
]]>
Why do we have to have a battle? Isn't the story itself interesting enough already?
Yes. For the fans. But I would guess that it isn't interesting enough for the filmmakers. If they have to add one, I like your version 2.Statistics: Posted by jesusgirl4ever — Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:32 pm
]]>