Forum Replies Created
Thank you for your response.
We did run into a couple of other questions.
- I ran into a situation with the shift. I have been placing the shift symbol after the first of the 2 notes as you would with a glissando. In this situation though, the note marked with the shift is after the backwards repeat sign in the continuation of measure 7. Would I then still place the shift after the G half at the beginning of measure 7, or would this confuse the reader with the repeat? Would it be appropriate to move the shift to before the B quarter in the 2<sup>nd</sup> part of measure 7?
2. Another situation I have is an arrow they are using in this book to represent the high or low finger pattern. Do you have any suggestions on how to handle this that doesn’t interrupt the music too much? Often times, the arrows are in conjunction with a finger number.
Sorry, the file size caused an error in the attachment. I have it attached here.
So you are saying that I should still use the brackets for the single slurs in the 14<sup>th</sup> measure shown in the selection? It just seemed like a lot of braille cells for just single slurs.
Thank you again.
Thank you! Must have overlooked that....January 17, 2018 at 8:51 am in reply to: A Function Displayed as a Superscript with no Variable Attached #30188
FYI, I had someone who was competent at math look at this formula because I was suspicious of its validity since the Nemeth code seems to miss this situation so completely. It seems this is an issue because there is a misprint in the text and the (ln) should be accompanied by the number 2 to make this formula work correctly. This is also alluded to in the text that precedes the problem as well. We are unfortunately confined to follow the print and feel very bad for this student. This book seems to contain many such errors.
Logic would dictate that since the declaration of the Numeric Passage Indicator is being made with other passage indicators that are of a non-technical nature, its intent is a non-technical one as well. This is also logical because there are instances of long strings of numbers not representing technical information such as a long printing history. It is my opinion that if the Numeric Passage Indicator were technical only in nature this information would have been listed in the technical section of the UEB code or listed in it's current location with references to it's technical nature included along with a cross-reference of that fact in the technical section of the UEB code. This is my opinion only and I am of no authority regarding Braille but it seems pretty cut and dried to me.
What would you recommend when itemized material is involved? I have attached an example with just such an instance. The termination indicator would interfere with the itemized entry that follows. If there had been additional text to the itemized entries that follow this would only exacerbate the issue more.
- This reply was modified 7 years, 2 months ago by Lucas Timpe.
Even after the Guidance for Transcription Using the Nemeth Code within UEB Context, that was approved in June of this year, I assume this is still the proper interpretation of this situation ? I see they still did not change the language in that.
Yes, and I couldn't agree with you more. I will pass this along.
I can say with all certainty that this is confusing for everyone because it is my opinion that the Dot locator (For Mention) having a double use/meaning tends to muddy the waters quite a bit on this topic.
Let me give you my interpretation (please correct me if I am wrong) and perhaps that will better frame my question. The Dot Locator has 2 uses:
Use 1 is for establishing a frame of reference when reading braille that is free floating in space to allow the reader to correctly interpret the braille text.
Use 2 is for a first time appearance of a transcriber created symbol in the braille text make a clear distinction apart from any text they've seen so far and establishing it as a symbol from that point forward.
The base question then is this, are the symbols in the key deserving of the Use 2 versions or the (For Mention) aspect of the dot locator even though they are transcriber generated?
Bumping this post.
Any luck with these questions?
The course is done although it is still being edited as needed. I'll have to see if I can find out the other questions you asked. Give me a couple days.
Sorry about the delay in responding. I missed the fact that you posted another question.
After going through the first review process, the idea of using the 7th transcriber-defined indicator was shot down. It was deemed that assigning a specific meaning to one of the transcriber-defined indicators was not a good idea. The ICEB code maintenance committee (the "owners" of UEB) have been asked to create a base reference indicator. In the meantime, what to do with marginal labels?
We are proposing that a key be created for the labels themselves using the UEB icon concept (dot 4, dots 1246 before letters representing the key). Then use the braille grouping indicators (dots 126, 345 from section 3.4) to surround the text that the label applies to. You will likely need grade 1 indicators preceding the braille grouping indicators. Again, this is PROPOSED and must still go through another review. Of course, the symbols must all be explained in a TN before the text.
That was a misstatement. Braille Formats 2011 does say that foreign words in English context are contracted. Forgive the slip.