strathspey Archive: Poussette was Pousette

Previous thread: Guinness Book
Next thread: Guinness Book [Oban Record]

Poussette was Pousette

Message 61157 · Hamish Dewar · 18 Jul 2011 12:21:39 · Top

What an erudite lot we have here on The Strathspey Server.
Here' s me thinking that Poussette was the French for kitten.

Since the SCD community is happy with French terms such as Poussette and Pas de Basque (paddy-bah), why the reluctance to use Dos-a-dos (dozy-doh) rather than the approved term Back-to-back?
Maybe the fear is (shock horror) that some dancers might be so vulgar as to fold their arms while dancing the movement.

Poussette was Pousette

Message 61158 · Martin Campoveja · 18 Jul 2011 14:19:29 · Top

2011/7/18 Hamish Dewar <hamish@hdewar.fsnet.co.uk>

> why the reluctance to use Dos-a-dos (dozy-doh) rather than the approved
> term Back-to-back?

Yes, indeed; high time to get rid of the ambiguous back-to-back which I have
seen interpreted in several different ways by dancers who had not read the
Manual.
For me "back to back" can describe only a position, or at most the figure in
"Peat Fire Flame" where 1st cp remain indeed back to back, setting to
corners and moving round each other; or the almost identical figure that has
been officially named "double triangles".

Of course, "dos à dos" means exactly the same thing *in French* as "back to
back" , but, when adopted by another language, it can take on whatever
meaning we fancy giving it (as with all the other French mistreated French
terms so far mentioned).

No reluctance on my part, Hamish; I've been saying dosàdos for the last 40
years.

Martin

Poussette was Pousette

Message 61160 · mlamontbrown · 18 Jul 2011 14:54:11 · Top

Hamish wrote:
> why the reluctance to use Dos-a-dos (dozy-doh) rather than the approved
> term Back-to-back?

Like many of our phrases and formation names, they are contractions of the
original description - "dancing round each other by the right, passing each
other back to back" is contracted down to "back to back".

Why people think that "dozy-doh" is more understandable to a new dancer
beats me - even when they are shown it, it just becomes a meaningless name
for a sequence of movements.

This is the first time I have come across an explanation for the phrases
origin, but presumably "dos a dos" would not sound like "dozy-doh" when
pronounced by a native French speaker.

The strength of using the RSCDS terminology is that it gives the same
problems to all non English speakers - the phrase "right hands across" is a
formation that non-English speakers have to learn, either by translating and
understanding, or just learning the sound and associating it with the
formation.

However, if you then use the word "wheel", or "Moulin", then the people who
use the "sound equals formation" method will have a problem.

When it comes to "dozey-doh" I would imagine that it is fine for people who
do square dancing, but not much help to the rest of us

Malcolm

Poussette was Pousette

Message 61163 · Hamish Dewar · 18 Jul 2011 15:36:29 · Top

Malcolm, this statement of yours made me chuckle:
"The strength of using the RSCDS terminology is that it gives the same
problems to all non English speakers".

Poussette was Pousette

Message 61167 · John Chambers · 18 Jul 2011 14:33:35 · Top

Hamish Dewar wrote:
| (dozy-doh) rather than the approved term Back-to-back?
| Maybe the fear is (shock horror) that some dancers might be so vulgar as =
| to fold their arms while dancing the movement.

Some years back, I read a long discussion of this on some list. The
folded-arms dosy-do figure was traced back to Hollywood movies of the
1930s, and then the trail grew cold. Nobody seems to know of any old
dance manuals that mention such folded arms. The conjecture was that
the directors thought just walking around each other was dull and
uninteresting (to viewers), so they fancied it up a bit. Since then,
most people "learn" square dancing first from old movies, so they
think the folded arms are a part of the figure.

Of course, it could have originated somewhere earlier than that, and
was just picked up by the move makers as the most visually appealing
variant of the figure.

--
Give someone a program, frustrate them for a day.
Teach someone to program, frustrate them for a lifetime.
_'
O
<:#/> John Chambers
+ <jc@trillian.mit.edu>
/#\ <jc1742@gmail.com>
| |

Poussette was Pousette

Message 61180 · Martin Campoveja · 19 Jul 2011 10:31:40 · Top

2011/7/18 mlamontbrown <mlamontbrown@btopenworld.com>

> ....
>
> Why people think that "dozy-doh" is more understandable (than "back to
> back") to a new dancer beats me .
>

I disagree, Malcolm. "Poussette", for example, has no other meaning in
English; " "back to back" has. Therefore it is impossible for a dancer to
know whether "1st couple dance back to back" should be taken as Queen's
English or RSCDS English. And this concerns not only new dancers. If "dos
y dos" were adopted (for the figure where two people beginning face to face
(!), move round each other clockwise facing in the same direction the whole
time and end face to face (!), as in bars 17-20 of "Joie de Vivre") then it
would become a non-ambiguous part of the jargon we have to learn, like
"skip-change" or "allemande". No easier, nor harder, to learn than anything
else. But unambiguous.

>
> ... the phrase "right hands across" is a
> formation that non-English speakers have to learn,
>

I doubt whether a native English speaker would know what we mean by "RH
across" if he were not shown how it is done. I's not a
Britain-versus-the-rest problem. No technical term is automatically clear to
anyone that has not learn the jargon, whatever his mother tongue may be.

>
> However, if you then use the word "wheel", or "Moulin",

I agree here. We should be consistent and not switch between terms.

When it comes to "dozey-doh" I would imagine that it is fine for people who
> do square dancing, but not much help to the rest of us
>

You've been doing SCD too long, Malcolm ;-)

Martin

Poussette was Pousette

Message 61182 · Hamish Dewar · 19 Jul 2011 12:20:03 · Top

Quite agree with Martin's comments.

If I may introduce a computer scientist's perspective, it is unsound to make
a major difference in meaning depend on a minor difference in wording. Lacks
redundancy in the technical sense.
For example: Four hands across v. Four hands round.

{Incidentally, how are four people supposed to join in a circle using just
four hands?)

Four hands

Message 61184 · Mike Briggs · 19 Jul 2011 12:33:24 · Top

I wondered about that when I began SCD and finally decided that it's only shorthand and that several words are missing.  So:  n [people join] hands [in a circle and dance] round.

And why "turn by the right" rather "turn to the right"?  Military influence?

Mike

Oregon, WI USA

Slight heatwave here.  Expected high today of 37C.  Trying to stay cool. 

Four hands

Message 61185 · Malcolm Austen · 19 Jul 2011 12:38:52 · Top

On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:33:24 +0100, Norma or Mike Briggs
<briggslaw@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I wondered about that when I began SCD and finally decided that it's
> only shorthand and that several words are missing. So: n [people join]
> hands [in a circle and dance] round.

I've always had an odd feeling that of 4 people circle it should be 8
hands round!

> And why "turn by the right" rather "turn to the right"? Military
> influence?

"turn by [giving] the right [hands]"

Surely you would not rephrase "turn both/two hands" as "turn both/two
ways" :-)

= Malcolm.

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Four hands

Message 61186 · Jim Healy · 19 Jul 2011 12:47:29 · Top

Greetings!

The surmise (and it can be no more than that) which I have heard most often is that the phrase lost its punctuation and was originally:

four <comma> hands round

Although I have never come across an example in that form in the various 18th/19th C books I have looked at, I would not be surprised at a typo being at the root of it :o)

Jim Healy
Perth, Scotland

_________________________________________________________________________

When we come to be instructed by philosophers, we must bring the old light of common sense along with us, and by it judge of the new light which the philosopher communicates. Thomas Reid, 1710-1796

> To: strathspey@strathspey.org
> Subject: Re: Four hands
> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:38:52 +0100
> From: malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk
>
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:33:24 +0100, Norma or Mike Briggs
> <briggslaw@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I wondered about that when I began SCD and finally decided that it's
> > only shorthand and that several words are missing. So: n [people join]
> > hands [in a circle and dance] round.
>
> I've always had an odd feeling that of 4 people circle it should be 8
> hands round!
>
> > And why "turn by the right" rather "turn to the right"? Military
> > influence?
>
> "turn by [giving] the right [hands]"
>
> Surely you would not rephrase "turn both/two hands" as "turn both/two
> ways" :-)
>
> = Malcolm.
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Four hands

Message 61306 · Pia Walker · 25 Jul 2011 00:49:41 · Top

Being a foreigner, I have always surmised that 'hands' meant the naval turn
for people.

Pia

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Healy [mailto:jimhealy@hotmail.com]
Sent: 19 July 2011 11:47
To: Strathspey List
Subject: RE: Four hands

Greetings!

The surmise (and it can be no more than that) which I have heard most often
is that the phrase lost its punctuation and was originally:

four <comma> hands round

Although I have never come across an example in that form in the various
18th/19th C books I have looked at, I would not be surprised at a typo being
at the root of it :o)

Jim Healy
Perth, Scotland

_________________________________________________________________________

When we come to be instructed by philosophers, we must bring the old light
of common sense along with us, and by it judge of the new light which the
philosopher communicates. Thomas Reid, 1710-1796

> To: strathspey@strathspey.org
> Subject: Re: Four hands
> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:38:52 +0100
> From: malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk
>
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:33:24 +0100, Norma or Mike Briggs
> <briggslaw@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I wondered about that when I began SCD and finally decided that it's
> > only shorthand and that several words are missing. So: n [people
> > join] hands [in a circle and dance] round.
>
> I've always had an odd feeling that of 4 people circle it should be 8
> hands round!
>
> > And why "turn by the right" rather "turn to the right"? Military
> > influence?
>
> "turn by [giving] the right [hands]"
>
> Surely you would not rephrase "turn both/two hands" as "turn both/two
> ways" :-)
>
> = Malcolm.
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Turn by the right

Message 61189 · Mike Briggs · 19 Jul 2011 13:48:22 · Top

Badly put on my part.  I wasn't referring to a move in the course of which one dancer takes right hands with another, but the move in which a single dancer, instead of dancing straight ahead, executes a 90-deg turn to his or her right.  I've seen that described as "turn by the right," and it reminds me of the military command "By the right - turn!"

Mike

1519 Storytown Road
Oregon WI 53575-2521 USA
+1 608 835 0914 (o)
+1 608 770 2304 (m)
+1 608 237 2379 (f)

Turn by the right

Message 61191 · Anselm Lingnau · 19 Jul 2011 14:06:37 · Top

Mike Briggs wrote:

> Badly put on my part. I wasn't referring to a move in the course of which
> one dancer takes right hands with another, but the move in which a single
> dancer, instead of dancing straight ahead, executes a 90-deg turn to his
> or her right. I've seen that described as "turn by the right," and it
> reminds me of the military command "By the right - turn!"

The RSCDS has apparently come off the idea of saying »turn by the right« in
your first case. According to the most recent issue of the terminology
leaflet, it is now supposed to be »turn with the right hand« or else »…,
giving right hands, turn …«.

I can't recall a dance description that uses »turn by the right« in your
second sense, and wouldn't use it in that sense myself – I'd prefer »dance to
the right« or »cast to the right«, depending on the context, or even use
something altogether different like »dance down the women's side«. I remember
that when I took up dancing I found it difficult to figure out that »pass your
partner by the right« actually meant moving past them on the *left* side,
until it dawned on me that one had to think »right shoulder to right
shoulder«.

Incidentally, does anyone agree that the RSCDS terminology leafleat is a good
thing in principle but could use a lot more context and examples of *complete*
dances? For example, there seem to be rules about how to finish off a dance
description, which the terminology leaflet does not get around to explaining –
compare »Repeat, having passed a couple« (i.e., 1st couple gets another turn
as »1st couple«) to »Repeat from new places« (i.e., everybody gets a new
number). This may be completely obvious to everybody except silly old me but I
still think there ought to be two or three *full* descriptions, with notes, in
the leaflet.

Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau, Mainz/Mayence, Germany ................. anselm@strathspey.org
Although golf was originally restricted to wealthy, overweight Protestants,
today it's open to anybody who owns hideous clothing. -- Dave Barry

Turn by the right

Message 61195 · Bruce Herbold · 19 Jul 2011 18:23:36 · Top

without wishing to stir up a hornets' nest, here in teh San Francisco Bay
area we have had quite heated discussions about how Arthur's Seat ends. It
says turn by the right at the end of H&G'bye setting and a petronella turn
to the right makes sense, although a use of right hands flows nicely into
the next start, too., But then on the end of the repeat it muddies teh
waters entirely. Check it out and see how you'd do it == a lovely dance
with a grand tune.

Bruce Herbold

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Anselm Lingnau <anselm@strathspey.org>wrote:

> Mike Briggs wrote:
>
> > Badly put on my part. I wasn't referring to a move in the course of
> which
> > one dancer takes right hands with another, but the move in which a single
> > dancer, instead of dancing straight ahead, executes a 90-deg turn to his
> > or her right. I've seen that described as "turn by the right," and it
> > reminds me of the military command "By the right - turn!"
> withi
> The RSCDS has apparently come off the idea of saying »turn by the right« in
> your first case. According to the most recent issue of the terminology
> leaflet, it is now supposed to be »turn with the right hand« or else »…,
> giving right hands, turn …«.
>
> I can't recall a dance description that uses »turn by the right« in your
> second sense, and wouldn't use it in that sense myself – I'd prefer »dance
> to
> the right« or »cast to the right«, depending on the context, or even use
> something altogether different like »dance down the women's side«. I
> remember
> that when I took up dancing I found it difficult to figure out that »pass
> your
> partner by the right« actually meant moving past them on the *left* side,
> until it dawned on me that one had to think »right shoulder to right
> shoulder«.
>
> Incidentally, does anyone agree that the RSCDS terminology leafleat is a
> good
> thing in principle but could use a lot more context and examples of
> *complete*
> dances? For example, there seem to be rules about how to finish off a dance
> description, which the terminology leaflet does not get around to
> explaining –
> compare »Repeat, having passed a couple« (i.e., 1st couple gets another
> turn
> as »1st couple«) to »Repeat from new places« (i.e., everybody gets a new
> number). This may be completely obvious to everybody except silly old me
> but I
> still think there ought to be two or three *full* descriptions, with notes,
> in
> the leaflet.
>
> Anselm
> --
> Anselm Lingnau, Mainz/Mayence, Germany .................
> anselm@strathspey.org
> Although golf was originally restricted to wealthy, overweight Protestants,
> today it's open to anybody who owns hideous clothing. -- Dave
> Barry
>

--
Bruce Herbold

Turn by the right

Message 61197 · Mike Briggs · 19 Jul 2011 19:27:55 · Top

I checked the archive (maybe we are reinventing the wheel, or should that be reinventing four hands across?)

Here's what Ron M had to say about ten years ago:

....................................................................................................

Arthur's Seat Bars 31-32 reads
.......................
" First couple turn by the right to own sides, in 2nd place.
First couple repeat from 2nd place with (with third and fourth
couples), and cross to own sides, to the bottom of the Set, on the
last 2 steps, while fourth couple move up to 3rd place."
.....................
However this is not an instruction to turn by the right hand. <snip>

......................................................................................................

And that's the genesis of my earlier question:  whence "turn by the right" rather than "turn to the right"?

Mike Briggs

1519 Storytown Road
Oregon WI 53575-2521 USA
+1 608 835 0914 (o)
+1 608 770 2304 (m)
+1 608 237 2379 (f)

Turn by the right

Message 61198 · Bruce Herbold · 19 Jul 2011 19:36:04 · Top

thank you, yes, it is the instruction to "cross to own sides" that opens up
the idea that the earlier "turn by the right" could involve hands; since at
the end of H&G'bye one is at top and bottom it is difficult to picture how
one would "cross to own sides" without giving hands.

Now as for all those awful dances like Dumbarton Drums and Frog in the
Middle with petronella turns to the left, when a turn by the left hand would
be so much more satisfying....I had learned to live with the RSCDS
intepretation, and even teach it, but then the strathspey with that
instruction was brought to my attention (the name escapes me) and I cannot
imagine how one could gracefully do it is strathspey.

I await enlightment...

Bruce Herbold
San Francisco

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Norma or Mike Briggs
<briggslaw@yahoo.com>wrote:

> I checked the archive (maybe we are reinventing the wheel, or should that
> be reinventing four hands across?)
>
> Here's what Ron M had to say about ten years ago:
>
>
> ....................................................................................................
>
>
> Arthur's Seat Bars 31-32 reads
> .......................
> " First couple turn by the right to own sides, in 2nd place.
> First couple repeat from 2nd place with (with third and fourth
> couples), and cross to own sides, to the bottom of the Set, on the
> last 2 steps, while fourth couple move up to 3rd place."
> .....................
> However this is not an instruction to turn by the right hand. <snip>
>
>
> ......................................................................................................
>
> And that's the genesis of my earlier question: whence "turn by the right"
> rather than "turn to the right"?
>
> Mike Briggs
>
>
> 1519 Storytown Road
> Oregon WI 53575-2521 USA
> +1 608 835 0914 (o)
> +1 608 770 2304 (m)
> +1 608 237 2379 (f)
>

--
Bruce Herbold

Turn by the right

Message 61216 · Brian Charlton · 20 Jul 2011 01:33:23 · Top

Hello,

Thanks, Anselm, for raising the Standard Terminology leaflet issued by the
Society. I wonder how many know of it's existence? However, your point about
Repeat is actually covered in the leaflet under that heading as follows:- a)
Having passed a couple, b) Repeat with a new top couple, c) Repeat from new
places, d) 2nd and 4th couples repeat bars ...

The revisions to the Miscellanies and Books 1 to 18 are made using the
standard terminology.

Brian Charlton,
Sydney, Australia

On 19 July 2011 22:06, Anselm Lingnau <anselm@strathspey.org> wrote:

> Mike Briggs wrote:
>
> > Badly put on my part. I wasn't referring to a move in the course of
> which
> > one dancer takes right hands with another, but the move in which a single
> > dancer, instead of dancing straight ahead, executes a 90-deg turn to his
> > or her right. I've seen that described as "turn by the right," and it
> > reminds me of the military command "By the right - turn!"
>
> The RSCDS has apparently come off the idea of saying »turn by the right« in
> your first case. According to the most recent issue of the terminology
> leaflet, it is now supposed to be »turn with the right hand« or else »…,
> giving right hands, turn …«.
>
> I can't recall a dance description that uses »turn by the right« in your
> second sense, and wouldn't use it in that sense myself – I'd prefer »dance
> to
> the right« or »cast to the right«, depending on the context, or even use
> something altogether different like »dance down the women's side«. I
> remember
> that when I took up dancing I found it difficult to figure out that »pass
> your
> partner by the right« actually meant moving past them on the *left* side,
> until it dawned on me that one had to think »right shoulder to right
> shoulder«.
>
> Incidentally, does anyone agree that the RSCDS terminology leafleat is a
> good
> thing in principle but could use a lot more context and examples of
> *complete*
> dances? For example, there seem to be rules about how to finish off a dance
> description, which the terminology leaflet does not get around to
> explaining –
> compare »Repeat, having passed a couple« (i.e., 1st couple gets another
> turn
> as »1st couple«) to »Repeat from new places« (i.e., everybody gets a new
> number). This may be completely obvious to everybody except silly old me
> but I
> still think there ought to be two or three *full* descriptions, with notes,
> in
> the leaflet.
>
> Anselm
> --
> Anselm Lingnau, Mainz/Mayence, Germany .................
> anselm@strathspey.org
> Although golf was originally restricted to wealthy, overweight Protestants,
> today it's open to anybody who owns hideous clothing. -- Dave
> Barry
>

Four hands

Message 61190 · mlamontbrown · 19 Jul 2011 13:53:12 · Top

Mike wrote:
>I wondered about that when I began SCD and finally decided that it's only
shorthand >and that several words are missing. So: n [people join] hands
[in a circle and >dance] round.

I'm not sure about it being shorthand, but phrases like "hands round all
six" and "hands 6 round" have been around since "first couple" looked like
"firft Cu."

>And why "turn by the right" rather "turn to the right"? Military
influence?

Personally I never like the phrase "turn by the right" as I'm never sure
whether it means "turn to the right" or "turn using the right hand".
(To be honest my mind always pops up with the question "turn what by the
right?")

Malcolm Brown

Four hands

Message 61192 · Chris Ronald · 19 Jul 2011 15:03:31 · Top

Malcolm B wrote:

"Personally I never like the phrase "turn by the right" as I'm never sure

> whether it means "turn to the right" or "turn using the right hand".
>
> And how often have you heard 'lead down the middle for 4 steps, turn, and
lead back again'?

So many ambiguities to trap the unwary.... or, alternatively, to give a
little light relief to a class.

Chris, New York.

Four hands

Message 61193 · mlamontbrown · 19 Jul 2011 15:16:03 · Top

In the days when stooging meant being as cruel as possible to fellow
candidates, the phrase that gave the biggest laugh was "lead down the middle
and back up to the top - shades of "Royal Albert Country Dance"

Malcolm

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Ronald [mailto:cjr878@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 July 2011 14:04
To: strathspey@strathspey.org
Subject: Re: Four hands

Malcolm B wrote:

"Personally I never like the phrase "turn by the right" as I'm never sure

> whether it means "turn to the right" or "turn using the right hand".
>
> And how often have you heard 'lead down the middle for 4 steps, turn, and
lead back again'?

So many ambiguities to trap the unwary.... or, alternatively, to give a
little light relief to a class.

Chris, New York.

Four hands

Message 61194 · Steve Wyrick · 19 Jul 2011 17:08:41 · Top

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Norma or Mike Briggs
<briggslaw@yahoo.com>wrote:

> I wondered about that when I began SCD and finally decided that it's only
> shorthand and that several words are missing. So: n [people join] hands
> [in a circle and dance] round.
>
>
A popular explanation locally is that it has the same origin as the phrase
"all hands on deck..." but I have never seen any proof that these are
actually connected.
--
Steve Wyrick -- Walnut Creek, California

Four hands

Message 61305 · Pia Walker · 25 Jul 2011 00:48:30 · Top

Ok - it is late, but turn by and turn to - isn't that two different
directions?

Pia

-----Original Message-----
From: Norma or Mike Briggs [mailto:briggslaw@yahoo.com]
Sent: 19 July 2011 11:33
To: strathspey@strathspey.org
Subject: Four hands

I wondered about that when I began SCD and finally decided that it's only
shorthand and that several words are missing.  So:  n [people join] hands
[in a circle and dance] round.

And why "turn by the right" rather "turn to the right"?  Military influence?

Mike

Oregon, WI USA

Slight heatwave here.  Expected high today of 37C.  Trying to stay cool. 

Poussette was Pousette

Message 61199 · Lmae · 19 Jul 2011 20:17:02 · Top

or Right Hands Across v. Cross giving Right Hands
Linda Mae

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hamish Dewar" <hamish@hdewar.fsnet.co.uk>
To: <strathspey@strathspey.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 3:20 AM
Subject: Re: Poussette was Pousette

> Quite agree with Martin's comments.
>
> If I may introduce a computer scientist's perspective, it is unsound to
> make a major difference in meaning depend on a minor difference in
> wording. Lacks redundancy in the technical sense.
> For example: Four hands across v. Four hands round.
>
> {Incidentally, how are four people supposed to join in a circle using just
> four hands?)
>
>
>

Poussette was Pousette

Message 61200 · Hamish Dewar · 19 Jul 2011 21:54:14 · Top

----- Original Message -----
> or Right Hands Across v. Cross giving Right Hands
> Linda Mae

Another good example, Linda Mae.

Others have commented that you must expect to learn some jargon when you
take up a hobby (or passion in my case). The problem with SCD terminology is
that it is often non-intuitive even counter-intuitive, and too often
ambiguous.

If we are going to put the the world to rights regarding SCD terminology
(one of the many topics I discuss with drouthy friends after a night's
dancing), what would we propose instead?
It's no good considering one term in isolation. We have to consider how each
term is differentiated from other terms.

We also need to eliminate ambiguity, whether in writing or the spoken word.
For example, I would vote for Right-hand Wheel instead of Right-hands
Across, except that the world Wheel sounds too much like the word Reel.
Faute de mieux, I would go for Star, but I rather like the suggestion of
Moulin put forward on this forum.

My first proposal is to abolish the term Set Dance. The intuitive
interpretation of that phrase is that it is a fixed dance. All SCD dances
are fixed dances, and they are all danced in Sets* .
Within SCD circles it is unnecessary to refer to Set Dances. The use of the
term simply creates an ambiguity with the use of the word Set as in
Set-to-partner .

Hamish.

*the exception proves the rule

Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61201 · Mike Briggs · 19 Jul 2011 22:07:12 · Top

Hamish, you told it like it is. "A dance for three couples in a three-couple set." Let's stop calling it a three-couple set dance. 

Now all we have to do is come up with another word for a group of dancers to differentiate it from the three-beat (sometimes two-beat) thingy they do in place.  :)

Mike Briggs

1519 Storytown Road
Oregon WI 53575-2521 USA
+1 608 835 0914 (o)
+1 608 770 2304 (m)
+1 608 237 2379 (f)

Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61202 · Anselm Lingnau · 19 Jul 2011 22:36:46 · Top

Mike Briggs wrote:

> Hamish, you told it like it is. "A dance for three couples in a
> three-couple set." Let's stop calling it a three-couple set dance.

I was under the impression that a »set dance« was one that wasn't progressive,
such as the 88-bar reels (»Round Reel of Eight« and friends) or most of the
MacNab dances.

> Now all we have to do is come up with another word for a group of dancers
> to differentiate it from the three-beat (sometimes two-beat) thingy they
> do in place. :)

Do we indeed? I've been teaching SCD for over 15 years now and according to my
personal experience, »set« (the group of dancers) vs. »set« (the movement) is
among the least of the problems that people tend to have ;^)

People also seem to be able to cope with the idea of »reel« (the rhythm) vs.
»reel« (the formation) vs. »reel« (the word in a dance name, think »General
Stuart's Reel« vs. »The Duke of Atholl's Reel« vs. »Lady Auckland's Reel«)
without getting mixed up. It does come across as a bit of an oddity, but you
don't find many pursuits that have been around for 400 years or so without
having accumulated a few oddities along the way. If you think SCD terminology
is quaint, have a look at typesetting or coal-mining – that'll teach you
»quaint«.

Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau, Mainz/Mayence, Germany ................. anselm@strathspey.org
These writers had every incentive to make Jesus look miraculous to compete
with the other Messiahs and gods. It’s playing a game of telephone with people
who think burning animals make gods happy and demons make people sick. After a
week, the stories would be inflated. After 40 years, people are rising from
the dead and walking on water. -- Daniel Florien, on the Gospels

Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61203 · Mike Briggs · 19 Jul 2011 22:46:25 · Top

Interesting.  In these parts a "set dance" is shorthand for a dance in which all the dancers dance most of the time (MacDonald of the Isles, e.g.) and progress within the set, as opposed to dances in a longways set in which the first couple progresses one place down the set to begin a second or third repetition.  Hamish, if you're still awake:  is that what you meant by "set dance"?

Anselm, perhaps you missed the smiley after my suggestion that we differentiate "set" from "set."

I make some of my living from interpreting and sometimes exploiting ambiguity.  God forbid the law (and SCD) are ever ambiguity-free.

Mike Briggs

Briggs Law Office
1519 Storytown Road
Oregon WI 53575-2521 USA
+1 608 835 0914 (o)
+1 608 770 2304 (m)
+1 608 237 2379 (f)

________________________________
From: Anselm Lingnau <anselm@strathspey.org>
To: strathspey@strathspey.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Mike Briggs wrote:

> Hamish, you told it like it is. "A dance for three couples in a
> three-couple set." Let's stop calling it a three-couple set dance.

I was under the impression that a »set dance« was one that wasn't progressive,
such as the 88-bar reels (»Round Reel of Eight« and friends) or most of the
MacNab dances.

> Now all we have to do is come up with another word for a group of dancers
> to differentiate it from the three-beat (sometimes two-beat) thingy they
> do in place.  :)

Do we indeed? I've been teaching SCD for over 15 years now and according to my
personal experience, »set« (the group of dancers) vs. »set« (the movement) is
among the least of the problems that people tend to have ;^)

People also seem to be able to cope with the idea of »reel« (the rhythm) vs.
»reel« (the formation) vs. »reel« (the word in a dance name, think »General
Stuart's Reel« vs. »The Duke of Atholl's Reel« vs. »Lady Auckland's Reel«)
without getting mixed up. It does come across as a bit of an oddity, but you
don't find many pursuits that have been around for 400 years or so without
having accumulated a few oddities along the way. If you think SCD terminology
is quaint, have a look at typesetting or coal-mining – that'll teach you
»quaint«.

Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau, Mainz/Mayence, Germany ................. anselm@strathspey.org
These writers had every incentive to make Jesus look miraculous to compete
with the other Messiahs and gods. It’s playing a game of telephone with people
who think burning animals make gods happy and demons make people sick. After a
week, the stories would be inflated. After 40 years, people are rising from
the dead and walking on water.              -- Daniel Florien, on the Gospels

Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61205 · Bruce Herbold · 19 Jul 2011 22:51:40 · Top

I'd have to go with Anslem, although we don't consistently use it that way
round here, a set dance is only a useful term if it differentiaes dances
that repeat from those thta don't MacDonald of Sleat -- yes, MacDonald of
the Isles - no. And if you repeat McD of Sleat from new places I want to
watch..

Bruce Herbold
(a big fan of McD of Sleat, I just wish I could find 7 other such fans)

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Norma or Mike Briggs
<briggslaw@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Interesting. In these parts a "set dance" is shorthand for a dance in
> which all the dancers dance most of the time (MacDonald of the Isles, e.g.)
> and progress within the set, as opposed to dances in a longways set in which
> the first couple progresses one place down the set to begin a second or
> third repetition. Hamish, if you're still awake: is that what you meant by
> "set dance"?
>
>
> Anselm, perhaps you missed the smiley after my suggestion that we
> differentiate "set" from "set."
>
> I make some of my living from interpreting and sometimes exploiting
> ambiguity. God forbid the law (and SCD) are ever ambiguity-free.
>
> Mike Briggs
>
>
> Briggs Law Office
> 1519 Storytown Road
> Oregon WI 53575-2521 USA
> +1 608 835 0914 (o)
> +1 608 770 2304 (m)
> +1 608 237 2379 (f)
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Anselm Lingnau <anselm@strathspey.org>
> To: strathspey@strathspey.org
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 3:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)
>
> Mike Briggs wrote:
>
> > Hamish, you told it like it is. "A dance for three couples in a
> > three-couple set." Let's stop calling it a three-couple set dance.
>
> I was under the impression that a »set dance« was one that wasn't
> progressive,
> such as the 88-bar reels (»Round Reel of Eight« and friends) or most of the
> MacNab dances.
>
> > Now all we have to do is come up with another word for a group of dancers
> > to differentiate it from the three-beat (sometimes two-beat) thingy they
> > do in place. :)
>
> Do we indeed? I've been teaching SCD for over 15 years now and according to
> my
> personal experience, »set« (the group of dancers) vs. »set« (the movement)
> is
> among the least of the problems that people tend to have ;^)
>
> People also seem to be able to cope with the idea of »reel« (the rhythm)
> vs.
> »reel« (the formation) vs. »reel« (the word in a dance name, think »General
> Stuart's Reel« vs. »The Duke of Atholl's Reel« vs. »Lady Auckland's Reel«)
> without getting mixed up. It does come across as a bit of an oddity, but
> you
> don't find many pursuits that have been around for 400 years or so without
> having accumulated a few oddities along the way. If you think SCD
> terminology
> is quaint, have a look at typesetting or coal-mining – that'll teach you
> »quaint«.
>
> Anselm
> --
> Anselm Lingnau, Mainz/Mayence, Germany .................
> anselm@strathspey.org
> These writers had every incentive to make Jesus look miraculous to compete
> with the other Messiahs and gods. It’s playing a game of telephone with
> people
> who think burning animals make gods happy and demons make people sick.
> After a
> week, the stories would be inflated. After 40 years, people are rising from
> the dead and walking on water. -- Daniel Florien, on the
> Gospels
>

--
Bruce Herbold

Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61210 · Ian Brockbank · 19 Jul 2011 23:24:55 · Top

Hi All,

I use the term "set dance" quite a lot...but only because I am regularly
distinguishing it from ceilidh dances which are round-the-room, couple
dances, or from highland dances. I have never come across "set dance" used
to distinguish dances which have no progression from other dances in a
similar shape but with progression.

(And Bruce - it's still only a little after 10pm here in Edinburgh - plenty
early for Hamish and me).

Cheers,

Ian Brockbank
Edinburgh, Scotland
ian@scottishdance.net
www.scottishdance.net

Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61217 · Hamish Dewar · 20 Jul 2011 11:37:31 · Top

My understanding of the term "set dance" accords with Ian's, and like him I
have never heard it used to make distinctions about progression.

Regarding the suggestions about Scottish Country Dances which are not set
dances, I did say earlier that the exception proves the rule.
Also, I don't regard some of them as exceptions. Circassian Circle (as a
circle dance) is not a Scottish Country Dance and neither (despite the name)
is Waltz Country Dance.
Conversely, Wind on Loch Fyne is a Scottish Country Dance but it is
certainly a set dance, just an unusual shape.

However, I am persuaded by the arguments put forward on this thread that we
can't really do without the term "set" in SCD.
Game and Set to the regular contributors.

Hamish.

Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61464 · Iain Boyd · 31 Jul 2011 21:56:27 · Top

Greetings all,

I have been away for a while and am 'playing catch up', so, forgive me if my comments repeat what may have been said more recently.

Iain Brockbank wrote that - 

"I have never come across "set dance" used
to distinguish dances which have no progression from other dances in a
similar shape but with progression."

I, on the other hand, in the 50+ years I have been dancing, have never before come across "set dance" to mean anything other than a dance which does not repeat itself - for example, "Bonnie Anne", "Round Reel of Eight", "Ian Powrie's Farewell To Auchterarder". 

If "Macdonald Of The Isles" (which is a three-couple progressive dance in a three-couple longwise set) is described as a 'set dance', then, are "Joe MacDiarmid's Jig" (which is a four-couple progressive dance in a four-couple longwise set) and "Rothesay Rant" (which is a four-couple progressive dance in a four-couple square set) also described as 'set dances'?

Regards,

 
Iain Boyd

Postal Address -

P O Box 11-404
Wellington 6142
New Zealand

Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61206 · Hamish Dewar · 19 Jul 2011 23:12:55 · Top

Whadya mean am I still awake, Mike. I'll have you know I still get up at the
crack of noon every day. How's your brain getting on with being addled by
the heat you are enjoying.

In my understanding of RSCDS parlance, a Set dance is one danced by sets of
couples. It might be 2/3/4/5 couples, it might be straight sets, square
sets, triangular sets. But it is always sets. So in SCD, the use of the word
Set in this meaning is redundant.
In SCD there are no circle dances, no round-the-room couple dances, no
contra-dances, no waltzes.

Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61209 · Mike Briggs · 19 Jul 2011 23:24:09 · Top

Circassian Circle?  Waltz CD? The Wind on Loch Fyne?  The Ferryboat?

Mike

 1519 Storytown Road
Oregon WI 53575-2521 USA

Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61211 · Anselm Lingnau · 19 Jul 2011 23:41:42 · Top

Hamish Dewar wrote:

> In my understanding of RSCDS parlance, a Set dance is one danced by sets of
> couples. It might be 2/3/4/5 couples, it might be straight sets, square
> sets, triangular sets. But it is always sets. So in SCD, the use of the
> word Set in this meaning is redundant.

> In SCD there are no circle dances, no round-the-room couple dances, no
> contra-dances, no waltzes.

There are certainly circle dances in SCD – it's only that the Society hasn't
yet seen fit to publish all that many of them. Get out your copy of RSCDS Book
5 and look for the »Round About Hullachan«; this is by no means a popular
dance, but it is there (and has been for a while). I often use »The Ferryboat«
at ceilidh-type events – this isn't an »RSCDS dance« but I first learned it
from the late Jean Yeats when she was my examiner for the Preliminary Test.
Not bad for a type of Scottish country dance that doesn't exist ;^)

As far as the round-the-room couple dances and waltzes are concerned, we get
them from the ceilidh dancers if required. The RSCDS does have a nice little
book called »Guide to Scottish Country Dancing« (formerly known as »the
Collins book«) which does give instructions for a useful selection of these,
so they are officially sanctioned. The term »set dance«, incidentally, does
not occur in that book, nor does it seem to appear in the »Manual of Scottish
Country Dancing«, nor the »Standard Terminology for describing Scottish
Country Dances« brochure – so there doesn't seem to be an official RSCDS
definition of the term.

I don't know what you mean by »contra-dances«. AFAIK this is what »country
dances« were called on the continent, back when they used to be danced as
»longways for as many as will«.

Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau, Mainz/Mayence, Germany ................. anselm@strathspey.org
The only reason terrorism hasn't brought the US to its knees is because 1)
there are few terrorists with a brain, and 2) even fewer terrorists with a
plan. -- Richard Steven Hack

Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61213 · mlamontbrown · 20 Jul 2011 00:18:45 · Top

What would you call Macdonald of the Isles? - a 3 couple dance in a three
couple set.

Macdonald of Sleat - a Set dance (120 bars); and by the way, you only need 3
other people, not 7.

Malcolm

Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61214 · Bruce Herbold · 20 Jul 2011 00:25:20 · Top

1. yes, exactly.

2. Not the way Mrs McNab danced it, teh RSCDS publication is a 4 cpl set
Maybe they do it differently in your part of the world? Me, I'm still
looking for 7 like-minded people.

Bruce

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:18 PM, mlamontbrown
<mlamontbrown@btopenworld.com>wrote:

> What would you call Macdonald of the Isles? - a 3 couple dance in a three
> couple set.
>
> Macdonald of Sleat - a Set dance (120 bars); and by the way, you only need
> 3
> other people, not 7.
>
> Malcolm
>
>
>
>

--
Bruce Herbold

Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61215 · Greg Reznick · 20 Jul 2011 01:08:25 · Top

Does it not make sense that the phrase "3 couple set dance" is merely an extension of the use by Pillings of the phrase "(3 cpl set)" in the heading of the diagram? (Look at MacDonald of the Isles.) I think most of the nuance being discussed is lost on the hoi polloi.

Greg Reznick
Berkeley, CA

Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61208 · Chris Ronald · 19 Jul 2011 23:22:09 · Top

Mike Briggs wrote:

"Interesting. In these parts a "set dance" is shorthand for a dance in
> which all the dancers dance most of the time (MacDonald of the Isles, e.g.)
> and progress within the set, as opposed to dances in a longways set in which
> the first couple progresses one place down the set to begin a second or
> third repetition."

That's what the term means in these parts too. I find it useful if I want to
be clear which of the two categories of dances a particular dance belongs
to. If we were to stop using the term "set dance" for dances like MacDonald
of the Isles, as some are advocating, what alternative shorthand expression
might we use?

Chris, New York.

Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61465 · Iain Boyd · 31 Jul 2011 22:29:55 · Top

Greetings,

Chris Ronald wrote -

"If we were to stop using the term "set dance" for dances like MacDonald
of the Isles, as some are advocating, what alternative shorthand expression
might we use?"

In my opinion, none is required. They are progressive longwise dances just as are "The White Cockade" and "Corn Rigs".

However, I concede that it may be necessary to differentiate between dances such as "The Macdonald Of The Isles" and "Joe MacDiarmid's Jig" (where first couple progresses to the bottom) and "Blooms Of Bon Accord" (where dancers move around within the set).

The first two are examples of dances with 'once and to the bottom' progression (a long used and 'traditional' description) while the third dance is an example (modern) of a dance with what I describe as 'internal' progression. 
By comparison, the 'once and to the bottom' progression could be described as an 'external' progression, although, I would not suggest that we go that far.

A traditional dance with 'internal' progression is "The Glasgow Highlanders".

Regards,

 
Iain Boyd

Postal Address -

P O Box 11-404
Wellington 6142
New Zealand

Glasgow Highlanders (was Set dances) (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61466 · Mike Briggs · 31 Jul 2011 22:53:52 · Top

GH "traditional"?  Surely not.  I thought it was pretty well documented as a late 19C dance devised for the ballroom.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Mike Briggs

 1519 Storytown Road

Oregon WI 53575-2521 USA
+1 608 835 0914 (o)
+1 608 770 2304 (m)
+1 608 237 2379 (f)

Glasgow Highlanders (was Set dances) (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61469 · Iain Boyd · 31 Jul 2011 23:43:56 · Top

Dear Mike,

"The Glasgow Highlanders" is 'traditional' in the sense that it was devised before the creation of the Society, is 100+ years old and, as far as I am aware, the deviser's name is unknown.

Regards,

 
Iain Boyd

Postal Address -

P O Box 11-404
Wellington 6142
New Zealand

----- Original Message -----
From: Norma or Mike Briggs <briggslaw@yahoo.com>
To: "strathspey@strathspey.org" <strathspey@strathspey.org>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, 1 August 2011 8:53 AM
Subject: Glasgow Highlanders (was Set dances) (was variant spellings of Poussette)

GH "traditional"?  Surely not.  I thought it was pretty well documented as a late 19C dance devised for the ballroom.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Mike Briggs

 1519 Storytown Road

Oregon WI  53575-2521  USA
+1 608 835 0914 (o)
+1 608 770 2304 (m)
+1 608 237 2379 (f)

Glasgow Highlanders (was Set dances) (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61471 · Mike Mudrey · 1 Aug 2011 00:07:46 · Top

walter f gillies

http://my.strathspey.org/dd/dance/2498/

-----Original Message-----
From: Iain Boyd [mailto:iain_boyd_scd@yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 4:44 PM
To: strathspey@strathspey.org
Subject: Re: Glasgow Highlanders (was Set dances) (was variant spellings of
Poussette)

Dear Mike,

"The Glasgow Highlanders" is 'traditional' in the sense that it was devised
before the creation of the Society, is 100+ years old and, as far as I am
aware, the deviser's name is unknown.

Regards,

 
Iain Boyd

Postal Address -

P O Box 11-404
Wellington 6142
New Zealand

----- Original Message -----
From: Norma or Mike Briggs <briggslaw@yahoo.com>
To: "strathspey@strathspey.org" <strathspey@strathspey.org>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, 1 August 2011 8:53 AM
Subject: Glasgow Highlanders (was Set dances) (was variant spellings of
Poussette)

GH "traditional"?  Surely not.  I thought it was pretty well documented as a
late 19C dance devised for the ballroom.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Mike Briggs

 1519 Storytown Road

Oregon WI  53575-2521  USA
+1 608 835 0914 (o)
+1 608 770 2304 (m)
+1 608 237 2379 (f)

Glasgow Highlanders (was Set dances) (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61472 · Mike Briggs · 1 Aug 2011 00:18:05 · Top

I was beginning to get a huge feeling of deja vu about GH, and sure enough we've been there and done that.  10 years ago Rosemary quoted the person who first published the dance (Walter Gillies, as Mikel says) in Message 28664 (6 Dec 2001).  Gillies attributes the dance to a company of Highland soldiers. 

While we probably won't ever know their names, this is close enough for me that 'traditional' doesn't cut it -- even though the dance predates the SCDS and is more than 100 years old (131, to be exact).  It's still a composed dance.

Mike Briggs

 

1519 Storytown Road
Oregon WI 53575-2521 USA
+1 608 835 0914 (o)
+1 608 770 2304 (m)
+1 608 237 2379 (f)

________________________________
From: Mikel Mudrey <mgmudrey@mhtc.net>
To: strathspey@strathspey.org
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 5:07 PM
Subject: RE: Glasgow Highlanders (was Set dances) (was variant spellings of Poussette)

walter f gillies

http://my.strathspey.org/dd/dance/2498/

-----Original Message-----
From: Iain Boyd [mailto:iain_boyd_scd@yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 4:44 PM
To: strathspey@strathspey.org
Subject: Re: Glasgow Highlanders (was Set dances) (was variant spellings of
Poussette)

Dear Mike,

"The Glasgow Highlanders" is 'traditional' in the sense that it was devised
before the creation of the Society, is 100+ years old and, as far as I am
aware, the deviser's name is unknown.

Regards,

 
Iain Boyd

Postal Address -

P O Box 11-404
Wellington 6142
New Zealand

----- Original Message -----
From: Norma or Mike Briggs <briggslaw@yahoo.com>
To: "strathspey@strathspey.org" <strathspey@strathspey.org>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, 1 August 2011 8:53 AM
Subject: Glasgow Highlanders (was Set dances) (was variant spellings of
Poussette)

GH "traditional"?  Surely not.  I thought it was pretty well documented as a
late 19C dance devised for the ballroom.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Mike Briggs

 1519 Storytown Road

Oregon WI  53575-2521  USA
+1 608 835 0914 (o)
+1 608 770 2304 (m)
+1 608 237 2379 (f)

Glasgow Highlanders (was Set dances) (was variant spellings ofPoussette)

Message 61473 · jo.pickering · 1 Aug 2011 00:33:39 · Top

On the other hand are there any dances that weren't composed? Somebody must have composed the dances in Walsh and Wilson. I think we know that Nathaniel Gow composed Petronella in about 1815. The fact is that SCD isn't in fact the 'traditional' dancing of country people in Scotland. It was invented in the late eighteenth century by doing ECD to Scottish music and addidng in some steps and figures from the foursome reel (and later from the quadrilles).

Jo
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

-----Original Message-----
From: Norma or Mike Briggs <briggslaw@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 15:18:05
To: strathspey@strathspey.org<strathspey@strathspey.org>
Reply-To: strathspey@strathspey.org
Subject: Re: Glasgow Highlanders (was Set dances) (was variant spellings of
Poussette)

I was beginning to get a huge feeling of deja vu about GH, and sure enough we've been there and done that.  10 years ago Rosemary quoted the person who first published the dance (Walter Gillies, as Mikel says) in Message 28664 (6 Dec 2001).  Gillies attributes the dance to a company of Highland soldiers. 

While we probably won't ever know their names, this is close enough for me that 'traditional' doesn't cut it -- even though the dance predates the SCDS and is more than 100 years old (131, to be exact).  It's still a composed dance.

Mike Briggs

 

1519 Storytown Road
Oregon WI 53575-2521 USA
+1 608 835 0914 (o)
+1 608 770 2304 (m)
+1 608 237 2379 (f)

________________________________
From: Mikel Mudrey <mgmudrey@mhtc.net>
To: strathspey@strathspey.org
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 5:07 PM
Subject: RE: Glasgow Highlanders (was Set dances) (was variant spellings of Poussette)

walter f gillies

http://my.strathspey.org/dd/dance/2498/

-----Original Message-----
From: Iain Boyd [mailto:iain_boyd_scd@yahoo.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 4:44 PM
To: strathspey@strathspey.org
Subject: Re: Glasgow Highlanders (was Set dances) (was variant spellings of
Poussette)

Dear Mike,

"The Glasgow Highlanders" is 'traditional' in the sense that it was devised
before the creation of the Society, is 100+ years old and, as far as I am
aware, the deviser's name is unknown.

Regards,

 
Iain Boyd

Postal Address -

P O Box 11-404
Wellington 6142
New Zealand

----- Original Message -----
From: Norma or Mike Briggs <briggslaw@yahoo.com>
To: "strathspey@strathspey.org" <strathspey@strathspey.org>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, 1 August 2011 8:53 AM
Subject: Glasgow Highlanders (was Set dances) (was variant spellings of
Poussette)

GH "traditional"?  Surely not.  I thought it was pretty well documented as a
late 19C dance devised for the ballroom.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Mike Briggs

 1519 Storytown Road

Oregon WI  53575-2521  USA
+1 608 835 0914 (o)
+1 608 770 2304 (m)
+1 608 237 2379 (f)

Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61204 · Hamish Dewar · 19 Jul 2011 22:47:47 · Top

I detect a note of sarcasm here, Norma or is it Mike.
What's wrong with "A dance for three couples"?
The rest is pleonastic (I believe there is such a word).

Set dances (was variant spellings of Poussette)

Message 61207 · Anselm Lingnau · 19 Jul 2011 23:20:41 · Top

Hamish Dewar wrote:

> What's wrong with "A dance for three couples"?
> The rest is pleonastic (I believe there is such a word).

Not really. You want to be able to differentiate between:

– dances like »Hooper's Jig« (where after 32 bars, 1st couple ends up in
second place and does the same set of figures again with 3rd and 4th
couples),

– dances like »Neidpath Castle« (where there is no 4th couple, and after 32
bars 1st couple has progressed to third place while the original 2nd
couple starts the choreography again from first place),

– dances like »The Earl of Errol's Reel«, which involve a three-couple set
but go once through for 200-plus bars.

Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau, Mainz/Mayence, Germany ................. anselm@strathspey.org
We learn as much from sorrow as from joy, as much from illness as from health,
from handicap as from advantage -- and indeed perhaps more. -- Pearl S. Buck

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61221 · e.ferguson · 20 Jul 2011 22:44:53 · Top

On 19 Jul 2011 at 20:54, Hamish Dewar wrote (in part):

> <..> The problem with SCD terminology is that it is often
> non-intuitive even counter-intuitive, and too often ambiguous.
> If we are going to put the the world to rights regarding SCD
> terminology <..> what would we propose instead? It's no good
> considering one term in isolation. We have to consider how each
> term is differentiated from other terms.

As writing cribs is part of my "SCD hobby", terminology is much in my
mind (or should I say it has got on my brain?). There are three
ambiguities which I come across regularly

1. The notion of "corner".
This can mean "corner position" or "corner person". In olden days
when few dances were complicated, that was not a problem, but at
present how can a dancer who is told to "turn first corner (meaning
person) know where that corner happens to be (perhaps in fourth
corner (position).)

We should use two different words for these notions. Here are a few
suggestions:

corner position Apex or point or angle
corner person co-partner

or perhaps we could invent entirely new words for both concepts, like
"co" (plural: "coes") for corner person.

I expect we should replace both usages with new words, as the
ambiguous usage is so deeply ingrained (and present in dance
descriptions) that replacing one meaning by a new word still does not
release "corner" for the other meaning exclusively.

2. The naming of corners.
The traditional names are First, Second, Partner's First, Partners
second. This can become very convoluted in dance descriptions and
even more so in cribs.

SUGGESTION: let us officially recognize "First, Second, Third and
Fourth.corners", and preferably use these names as our first choice.

3. "Turn".
Mostly used for "turn another dancer", but also for "turn single"
(i.e. face another way on your own, either turning on the spot, or
dancing a small loop.

Can we give "turn single" a new compact name? In my cribs I use
"veer", "pivot", "swivel" and "face", and (sometimes) "turn". Any
better ideas?

Apart from these ambiguities, there are a few movements which occur
frequently, but lack a name. For example;

4. "Half turn partner and face partner close by, and cast out to the
sideline". Sometimes called "Argyll turn", but we know it is better
not to name a formation by a dance.

I would welcome an exchange of views on Strathspey. If we come to
agreement on any item here, that could be made into a proposal to the
RSCDS to standardize the new name in the next revision to the Manual.

Happy dancing,

Eric

--
Eric T. Ferguson,
van Reenenweg 3, 3702 SB ZEIST Netherlands
tel: +31 30-2673638

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61222 · Mike Mudrey · 20 Jul 2011 23:11:34 · Top

Many good ideas. My personal choice is to call the present position. I forget where others started or where I was. I do know where I am now.

Have you considered "right corner" and "left corner" for first and second?

mm
Sent from my U.S. Cellular BlackBerry® smartphone

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61224 · Gary Lindsey · 20 Jul 2011 23:52:53 · Top

I may be in the minority on this one, but I have no problems with (and prefer)
first, second, third and fourth corners.
Gary Lindsey
Dayton, Ohio

________________________________
From: "mgmudrey@mhtc.net" <mgmudrey@mhtc.net>
To: strathspey@strathspey.org
Sent: Wed, July 20, 2011 5:11:34 PM
Subject: Re: Improve our Terminology? (was: Poussette was Pousette)

Many good ideas. My personal choice is to call the present position. I forget
where others started or where I was. I do know where I am now.

Have you considered "right corner" and "left corner" for first and second?

mm
Sent from my U.S. Cellular BlackBerry® smartphone

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61226 · Anselm Lingnau · 21 Jul 2011 00:12:14 · Top

Gary Lindsey wrote:

> I may be in the minority on this one, but I have no problems with (and
> prefer) first, second, third and fourth corners.

I think the issue wasn't so much the »first« and »second« as it was the
»corners« (as in »corner person« and »corner position«).

Personally I don't think it is that much of a big deal. In many cases the
»corner person« and »corner position« will be the same, anyway, and if they
differ it is easy to add »person« or »position« as required. It would
certainly be more confusing to suddenly use completely different terms, if
only because of the 14,000 or so dance descriptions around that probably won't
all be changed to match.

Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau, Mainz/Mayence, Germany ................. anselm@strathspey.org
Emacs can do anything ... just ask it. -- Rob Pike

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61227 · Heiko Schmidt · 21 Jul 2011 00:58:43 · Top

Hi,

>> I may be in the minority on this one, but I have no problems with (and
>> prefer) first, second, third and fourth corners.
> I think the issue wasn't so much the »first« and »second« as it was the
> »corners« (as in »corner person« and »corner position«).

It actually was both (point 1 and 2)

I also have no problem with 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th corners. I prefer this
over 1st, 2nd, partner's 1st, partner's 2nd corners, since in the latter
case I have to think around the corner instead of just enumerating.

> Personally I don't think it is that much of a big deal. In many cases the
> »corner person« and »corner position« will be the same, anyway, and if they
> differ it is easy to add »person« or »position« as required.

Sounds reasonable.
If no extension (person or position) is given, I prefer that a corner
describes the position since the position does not move. Otherwise, it
implies a lot of thinking to figure out where the corner person is to be
found at a bar of the dance.
(Note, the a corner is a geometric position inside a square.)

> It would certainly be more confusing to suddenly use completely different terms, if
> only because of the 14,000 or so dance descriptions around that probably won't
> all be changed to match.

I guess most dances (especially the older ones) expect the RSCDS books
will never be adapted to any new nomenclature.

Cheers,
Heiko

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61240 · Fran Smith · 21 Jul 2011 20:58:45 · Top

I, too, prefer first, second, third and fourth corners.
Remembering faces is fine first time around but then comes the second turn and the one "face" has moved and the other is new.
Fran Smith (South Wales)

--- On Wed, 20/7/11, Gary Lindsey <gary.lindsey@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> From: Gary Lindsey <gary.lindsey@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: Improve our Terminology? (was: Poussette was Pousette)
> To: strathspey@strathspey.org
> Date: Wednesday, 20 July, 2011, 21:52
> I may be in the minority on this one,
> but I have no problems with (and prefer)
> first, second, third and fourth corners.
> Gary Lindsey
> Dayton, Ohio
> >

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61241 · mlamontbrown · 21 Jul 2011 21:40:10 · Top

I think the simplest example of why I prefer the 3rd 4th corners system
comes in trying to brief Peggy Dewar - bars 12 - 16;

1st couple finish the reel facing their second corners, who are in their
partner's first corner position?

Malcolm

-----Original Message-----
From: Fran Smith [mailto:fran.smith10@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 21 July 2011 19:59
To: strathspey@strathspey.org
Subject: Re: Improve our Terminology? (was: Poussette was Pousette)

I, too, prefer first, second, third and fourth corners.
Remembering faces is fine first time around but then comes the second turn
and the one "face" has moved and the other is new.
Fran Smith (South Wales)

--- On Wed, 20/7/11, Gary Lindsey <gary.lindsey@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> From: Gary Lindsey <gary.lindsey@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: Improve our Terminology? (was: Poussette was Pousette)
> To: strathspey@strathspey.org
> Date: Wednesday, 20 July, 2011, 21:52
> I may be in the minority on this one,
> but I have no problems with (and prefer)
> first, second, third and fourth corners.
> Gary Lindsey
> Dayton, Ohio
> >

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61223 · Kate Walker · 20 Jul 2011 23:42:12 · Top

The action you describe below:

> 4. "Half turn partner and face partner close by, and cast out to the
> sideline". Sometimes called "Argyll turn", but we know it is better
> not to name a formation by a dance.

We call it "half turn and twirl" - though it doesn't exactly describe the actual movement involved - when done with the right hand, each partner pulling back right shoulder to cast. I would not use that phrase to describe a situation where both partners cast up (mirroring each other) or down. And haven't encountered a L-hand, L-shoulder cast, version. Yet.

Kate Walker
Austin, TX

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61228 · Heiko Schmidt · 21 Jul 2011 01:13:33 · Top

On 20.7.11 23:42 , Kate Gaertner wrote:
> The action you describe below:
>> 4. "Half turn partner and face partner close by, and cast out to the
>> sideline". Sometimes called "Argyll turn", but we know it is better
>> not to name a formation by a dance.
> We call it "half turn and twirl" - though it doesn't exactly describe the actual movement involved - when done with the right hand, each partner pulling back right shoulder to cast. I would not use that phrase to describe a situation where both partners cast up (mirroring each other) or down. And haven't encountered a L-hand, L-shoulder cast, version. Yet.

John Drewry used the name "half-turn and a twirl" in a number of dances
(e.g. in Greenburn Book 3 and New Dances 2003).

I also have heard the term "Gypsy turn" for this movement.

Does anyone know whether Argyll Strathspey by Roy Goldring is the first
description of this movement?

Cheers,
Heiko

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61229 · Lmae · 21 Jul 2011 01:45:21 · Top

We also use the term "half turn and twirl" for the described figure.
Here "gypsy turn" means "turn" without giving hands, but only by locking
eyeballs. Very sexy.
Linda Mae
Southwest Washington

----- Original Message -----
From: "Heiko Schmidt" <heiko.schmidt@univie.ac.at>
To: <strathspey@strathspey.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Improve our Terminology?

> On 20.7.11 23:42 , Kate Gaertner wrote:
>> The action you describe below:
>>> 4. "Half turn partner and face partner close by, and cast out to the
>>> sideline". Sometimes called "Argyll turn", but we know it is better
>>> not to name a formation by a dance.
>> We call it "half turn and twirl" - though it doesn't exactly describe the
>> actual movement involved - when done with the right hand, each partner
>> pulling back right shoulder to cast. I would not use that phrase to
>> describe a situation where both partners cast up (mirroring each other)
>> or down. And haven't encountered a L-hand, L-shoulder cast, version.
>> Yet.
>
> John Drewry used the name "half-turn and a twirl" in a number of dances
> (e.g. in Greenburn Book 3 and New Dances 2003).
>
> I also have heard the term "Gypsy turn" for this movement.
>
> Does anyone know whether Argyll Strathspey by Roy Goldring is the first
> description of this movement?
>
> Cheers,
> Heiko
>
>

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61231 · Kate Walker · 21 Jul 2011 04:19:04 · Top

We also "gypsy turn" with eyeballs only.

Cheers,
Kate Walker
Austin, TX

> From: lmae@imaginationprocessing.com
> To: strathspey@strathspey.org
> Subject: Re: Improve our Terminology?
> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:45:21 -0700
>
> We also use the term "half turn and twirl" for the described figure.
> Here "gypsy turn" means "turn" without giving hands, but only by locking
> eyeballs. Very sexy.
> Linda Mae
> Southwest Washington
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Heiko Schmidt" <heiko.schmidt@univie.ac.at>
> To: <strathspey@strathspey.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 4:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Improve our Terminology?
>
>
> > On 20.7.11 23:42 , Kate Gaertner wrote:
> >> The action you describe below:
> >>> 4. "Half turn partner and face partner close by, and cast out to the
> >>> sideline". Sometimes called "Argyll turn", but we know it is better
> >>> not to name a formation by a dance.
> >> We call it "half turn and twirl" - though it doesn't exactly describe the
> >> actual movement involved - when done with the right hand, each partner
> >> pulling back right shoulder to cast. I would not use that phrase to
> >> describe a situation where both partners cast up (mirroring each other)
> >> or down. And haven't encountered a L-hand, L-shoulder cast, version.
> >> Yet.
> >
> > John Drewry used the name "half-turn and a twirl" in a number of dances
> > (e.g. in Greenburn Book 3 and New Dances 2003).
> >
> > I also have heard the term "Gypsy turn" for this movement.
> >
> > Does anyone know whether Argyll Strathspey by Roy Goldring is the first
> > description of this movement?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Heiko
> >
> >
>

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61233 · Denise Smith · 21 Jul 2011 04:35:52 · Top

Yuck! That sound painful!!!!
Denise

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Kate Gaertner <yovimpa@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> We also "gypsy turn" with eyeballs only.
>
> Cheers,
> Kate Walker
> Austin, TX
>
> > From: lmae@imaginationprocessing.com
> > To: strathspey@strathspey.org
> > Subject: Re: Improve our Terminology?
> > Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:45:21 -0700
> >
> > We also use the term "half turn and twirl" for the described figure.
> > Here "gypsy turn" means "turn" without giving hands, but only by locking
> > eyeballs. Very sexy.
> > Linda Mae
> > Southwest Washington
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Heiko Schmidt" <heiko.schmidt@univie.ac.at>
> > To: <strathspey@strathspey.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 4:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: Improve our Terminology?
> >
> >
> > > On 20.7.11 23:42 , Kate Gaertner wrote:
> > >> The action you describe below:
> > >>> 4. "Half turn partner and face partner close by, and cast out to the
> > >>> sideline". Sometimes called "Argyll turn", but we know it is better
> > >>> not to name a formation by a dance.
> > >> We call it "half turn and twirl" - though it doesn't exactly describe
> the
> > >> actual movement involved - when done with the right hand, each partner
> > >> pulling back right shoulder to cast. I would not use that phrase to
> > >> describe a situation where both partners cast up (mirroring each
> other)
> > >> or down. And haven't encountered a L-hand, L-shoulder cast, version.
> > >> Yet.
> > >
> > > John Drewry used the name "half-turn and a twirl" in a number of dances
> > > (e.g. in Greenburn Book 3 and New Dances 2003).
> > >
> > > I also have heard the term "Gypsy turn" for this movement.
> > >
> > > Does anyone know whether Argyll Strathspey by Roy Goldring is the first
> > > description of this movement?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Heiko
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

--
Denise Smith
76 Celandine St
Shailer Park Qld 4128
+617 3209 7006
pauldenise3@bigpond.com

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61230 · Rod Downey · 21 Jul 2011 01:45:32 · Top

Hi Heiko,

I have always heard of the ``gypsy (turn)'' as being to dance
as per a right hand turn around with partner but without hands.

The first example of a half turn and twirl I am aware of is Alec Hay,
and his were always two hands to my knowledge. I don't have my
books here in Singapore and so can't recall the dances....Iain(?).

(By the way, Alex Hay also had set and link long ago.)

rod

On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Heiko Schmidt wrote:

> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 01:13:33 +0200
> From: Heiko Schmidt <heiko.schmidt@univie.ac.at>
> Reply-To: strathspey@strathspey.org
> To: strathspey@strathspey.org
> Subject: Re: Improve our Terminology?
>
> On 20.7.11 23:42 , Kate Gaertner wrote:
>> The action you describe below:
>>> 4. "Half turn partner and face partner close by, and cast out to the
>>> sideline". Sometimes called "Argyll turn", but we know it is better
>>> not to name a formation by a dance.
>> We call it "half turn and twirl" - though it doesn't exactly describe the
>> actual movement involved - when done with the right hand, each partner
>> pulling back right shoulder to cast. I would not use that phrase to
>> describe a situation where both partners cast up (mirroring each other) or
>> down. And haven't encountered a L-hand, L-shoulder cast, version. Yet.
>
> John Drewry used the name "half-turn and a twirl" in a number of dances (e.g.
> in Greenburn Book 3 and New Dances 2003).
>
> I also have heard the term "Gypsy turn" for this movement.
>
> Does anyone know whether Argyll Strathspey by Roy Goldring is the first
> description of this movement?
>
> Cheers,
> Heiko
>

'Half turn and twirl' (Was Improve our Terminology?)

Message 61468 · Iain Boyd · 31 Jul 2011 23:22:24 · Top

Greetings all,

What to call this figure has been discussed already - considerably, I might point out.

Personally, I do not like 'half turn and twirl' and prefer 'half turn and cast away'.

This movement is usually danced with the 'half turn' being done with right hands, and, is, in my opinion an ugly movement - especially when danced to a reel or jig. Even when danced to a strathspey it looses the shape and gracefulness it could have.

The figure occurs in two variations -

The more frequent variation uses right hands to change places and was first introduced by Roy Goldring in "The Argyll Strathspey" (RSCDS Book 35).

The second variation uses both hands and was introduced by Alec Hay many, many, many years before Roy Goldring used it. (Unfortunately, I am unable to tell you when and in which dance Alec first used the formation.) However, the RSCDS recently introduced this variation when it published Romaine Butterfield's dance "The Bonny Tree" (RSCDS Book 45). Romaine, like me, was much influenced by Alec Hay.

Whether Roy was influenced by Alec or whether he independently created a similar movement we will never know. However, I believe that he created the 'right-handed' variation independently of Alec. If he was influenced by Alec I would have expected him to use Alec's 'two-handed' version.

Alec insisted the movement be danced with a momentary pause at the end of the turn so that both dancers are facing each other and can acknowledge each other before casting away to the right. This can be more easily achieved via the two-handed variation than the right-handed variation.

When dancing the right-handed variation most dancers start to cast before the end of bar 2 leading to a 'twirling' movement - which I find ugly and quite unnecessary. The use of the description of 'half turn and twirl' by John Drewry only increases the likelihood that dancers will 'twirl' on the spot and will ignore their partner at the end of the turn.

Regards,

 
Iain Boyd

Postal Address -

P O Box 11-404
Wellington 6142
New Zealand

'Half turn and twirl' (Was Improve our Terminology?)

Message 61512 · Oberdan Otto · 1 Aug 2011 16:59:05 · Top

Just to tweak the discussion a bit...

In couple dancing:

"twirl" is the lady turning UNDER the man's arm with one or more steps
(weight changes).
"spin" is short for "free spin" is a person turning completely about
on one foot without assistance.
"roll" is an individual (unsupported) turn done with 2 or more steps.
"spiral" is a quick (almost 360degree) spin on the spot after having
taken a step, leaving the trailing foot behind so the trailing leg
partially wraps the stepping leg. The wrapped foot must be unhooked to
take the next step.
"curl" is usually a slow assisted spiral.

Of course there is always "turn" which is generic for all the above
(probably not a complete list). These are generally NOT actions we use
in SCD except to spice up basic actions.

Cheers, Oberdan.

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61225 · Ian Brockbank · 21 Jul 2011 00:00:57 · Top

Hi Eric,

I seem to recall we've had this discussion before...

> 1. The notion of "corner".
> This can mean "corner position" or "corner person". In olden days when
few
> dances were complicated, that was not a problem, but at present how can a
> dancer who is told to "turn first corner (meaning
> person) know where that corner happens to be (perhaps in fourth corner
> (position).)

The RSCDS books seem to have standardised on corner = the person. In my
opinion this
is unfortunate, since the position doesn't move but the person does, so
wherever there
is ambiguity I always say (e.g.) 2nd corner person in first corner position.
However, that
seems to have been the decision.

However, I don't see a need to invent a new term to replace "corner person"
or "corner position".
There is far too much history in "corner" for any replacement to have
sufficient benefit to
gain traction (think of IPV6).

> 2. The naming of corners.
> The traditional names are First, Second, Partner's First, Partners
> second. This can become very convoluted in dance descriptions and
> even more so in cribs.
>
> SUGGESTION: let us officially recognize "First, Second, Third and
> Fourth.corners", and preferably use these names as our first choice.

This does seem to have a reasonable amount of traction in various places
around the world,
and is an extension rather than a replacement.

> 3. "Turn".
> Mostly used for "turn another dancer", but also for "turn single"
> (i.e. face another way on your own, either turning on the spot, or dancing
a
> small loop.
>
> Can we give "turn single" a new compact name? In my cribs I use "veer",
> "pivot", "swivel" and "face", and (sometimes) "turn". Any better ideas?

I use "turn about", optionally adding "pulling back <right/left> shoulder.

Cheers,

Ian Brockbank
Edinburgh, Scotland
ian@scottishdance.net
www.scottishdance.net

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61235 · campbell · 21 Jul 2011 08:29:39 · Top

Eric wrote:
>1. The notion of "corner". This can mean "corner position" or "corner
person".

Can anyone give me an example of a dance where the instruction "corner
person" could not be replaced by "corner position"? It seems to me that
where the term corner person is used it could equally well have been
described by saying e.g. 3rd corner (position). Whenever I teach a dance
which has "corner person" in the instructions I always change it to the
equivalent "corner position". My class consequently knows that when I say
"corner" they can be sure I mean the position. I have yet to be stuck by a
dance description to which I could not make this change. But I wait to be
proved wrong by the exception. Can anyone provide it?

PS I have just had to change all the "positions" in the above to "person"
because rereading it I realised I had mixed the two up. I rest my case.

Campbell Tyler
Cape Town

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6311 (20110720) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61237 · Angus Henry · 21 Jul 2011 08:47:30 · Top

I suggest that using "Corner" to mean ONLY corner position is the logical and practical way to go. Try teaching a dance like Polharrow Burn or other 5 and 7 couple dances in which the person who starts as a dancing couple's 1st corner can end up anywhere else in the set; a dancer's corner position identifies the same positional relationship each time, but the person who occupies it doesn't really matter as long as the correct dancer gets to the place in time.
This approach also helps dancers to learn the structural concept of the dance and so dance it easily from whichever position they are in, rather than "but Joe Blow was to my left before and is now opposite me - why?"

Angus

Angus & Puka Henry
DARWIN, AUSTRALIA
Website: <http://www.users.on.net/~anguka/>

On 21-07-2011, at 15:59 , Campbell Personal wrote:

> Eric wrote:
>> 1. The notion of "corner". This can mean "corner position" or "corner
> person".
>
> Can anyone give me an example of a dance where the instruction "corner
> person" could not be replaced by "corner position"? It seems to me that
> where the term corner person is used it could equally well have been
> described by saying e.g. 3rd corner (position). Whenever I teach a dance
> which has "corner person" in the instructions I always change it to the
> equivalent "corner position". My class consequently knows that when I say
> "corner" they can be sure I mean the position. I have yet to be stuck by a
> dance description to which I could not make this change. But I wait to be
> proved wrong by the exception. Can anyone provide it?
>
>
> PS I have just had to change all the "positions" in the above to "person"
> because rereading it I realised I had mixed the two up. I rest my case.
>
>
> Campbell Tyler
> Cape Town
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 6311 (20110720) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61242 · Ian Brockbank · 21 Jul 2011 22:27:49 · Top

Hi Angus,

> I suggest that using "Corner" to mean ONLY corner position is the logical
and
> practical way to go. Try teaching a dance like Polharrow Burn or other 5
and 7
> couple dances in which the person who starts as a dancing couple's 1st
corner
> can end up anywhere else in the set; a dancer's corner position identifies
the
> same positional relationship each time, but the person who occupies it
> doesn't really matter as long as the correct dancer gets to the place in
time.
> This approach also helps dancers to learn the structural concept of the
dance
> and so dance it easily from whichever position they are in, rather than
"but
> Joe Blow was to my left before and is now opposite me - why?"

While I would also prefer this, I think it is too late to mandate this now -
there is
too much already which has it the other way round, so it would be confusing
looking at historical books even if everything did get republished.

Cheers,

Ian Brockbank
Edinburgh, Scotland
ian@scottishdance.net
www.scottishdance.net

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61243 · Hamish Dewar · 21 Jul 2011 23:19:18 · Top

Apologies if I am not replying to the correct post, but I'm still trying to
get the hang of how to communicate on this quaint but delightful forum.
(Our estimable host Anselm knows that is a dig at his preference for logical
clunkiness over user-friendliness).

Well done to whoever referred to Polharrow Burn. That's a perfect example
why you should think about positions not persons.

And to whoever said that in SCD a corner is a geometric position within a
square, no it is a geometric position within a rectangle.
That might sound like a pedantic point, but take for example The Reel of the
51st Division..
Dancing couple set and cast off two places.
Second couple step up BUT third couple stay put.
If third couple step up, they create a square not a rectangle.
That ruins the symbolism of this dance. The double balance-in-line
symbolises the Scottish Saltire, which is rectangular not square.
I admit that's just the political aspect. Maybe from a dancing aspect, it
would be better for symmetry if the corners formed a square.

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61245 · Heiko Schmidt · 22 Jul 2011 00:38:12 · Top

Hi Hamish,

> Apologies if I am not replying to the correct post, but I'm still
> trying to get the hang of how to communicate on this quaint but
> delightful forum.
> (Our estimable host Anselm knows that is a dig at his preference for
> logical clunkiness over user-friendliness).
>
> Well done to whoever referred to Polharrow Burn. That's a perfect
> example why you should think about positions not persons.
>
> And to whoever said that in SCD a corner is a geometric position
> within a square, no it is a geometric position within a rectangle.
> That might sound like a pedantic point,

I agree, that it is a kind of nitpicking ;)

> but take for example The Reel of the 51st Division..
> Dancing couple set and cast off two places.
> Second couple step up BUT third couple stay put.
> If third couple step up, they create a square not a rectangle.
> That ruins the symbolism of this dance. The double balance-in-line
> symbolises the Scottish Saltire, which is rectangular not square.
> I admit that's just the political aspect. Maybe from a dancing
> aspect, it would be better for symmetry if the corners formed a square.

The comment was referring to a geometric figure and rectangle is
certainly the more correct term, as the sides will rarely be equidistant.
However, to be a bit pedantic as well: I disagree, that two couples
standing next to each other for a square. Usually, the distance to your
opposite is larger than that to your neighbour (measured from the body
centre, not the shoulders, of course :). Thus, the pattern formed by the
corners (in 1st and 3rd place) is typically more square-ish than the
pattern formed by the dancers of a 2-couple set (i.e. similar to the 2nd
and 3rd cpl having stepped up to places 1 and 2 in the example).
While in Reel of the 51st a pronounced rectangle is required for the
symbolism pointed out above, a more square-ish geometry certainly gives
a better feeling in set-and-link-for-three as in Gang the Same Gate.

Nevertheless, of course there will almost never be a proper square!

Sorry for not being able to resist... 8^)

Cheers,
Heiko

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61250 · Hamish Dewar · 22 Jul 2011 12:26:59 · Top

Hi Heiko,

Bang to rights, yes I tend to be something of a nitpicker.
It's always meant in good humour, which is difficult to convey in email if
you can't do smileys. I usually try to include some constructive suggestions
too.

Regarding Polharrow Burn and similar dances, not only do you need to think
in terms of corner positions not corner people. You need to realise that the
inner corner positions (sounds like a contradiction in terms) are both 1st
corner and 2nd corner positions. Once you have grasped that, the Burn flows
freely.
I find it helpful when teaching the dance to give the rule of thumb:
If you are at an inner corner position, you are dancing the next half-reel.
If you reach an outer corner position; you are not.
Standing still is one of the most difficult SCD movements to learn.

I quite agree with you that in some 3 couple dances, it is better if the
corners form a square. The rectangular formation is natural if you have 3
people on each side. But in many dances, the dancing couple are AWOL a lot
of the time, cavorting around in the middle/centre of the set.
Not only Set-and-Link-for-Three but Double-Triangles-All-round work better
with corners on a square, unless you have telescopic arms.

Hamish.

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61251 · Anselm Lingnau · 22 Jul 2011 12:51:00 · Top

Hamish Dewar wrote:

> Regarding Polharrow Burn and similar dances, not only do you need to think
> in terms of corner positions not corner people. You need to realise that
> the inner corner positions (sounds like a contradiction in terms) are both
> 1st corner and 2nd corner positions. Once you have grasped that, the Burn
> flows freely.

Actually, I don't explain Polharrow Burn in terms of »corner positions« or
»corner people« at all – I use »diagonals«. After all, it doesn't really
matter exactly *who* you're reeling with as long as you're going in the right
direction. I usually teach Mairi's Wedding (with the statutory left shoulder
passes) before Polharrow Burn for the benefit of 1st and 3rd couples.

The point Hamish makes about »inner« and »outer« positions also helps. My
first SCD teacher, the inimitable Jack Campbell, used to say something along
the lines of »If you've been zigging in, you zag right out again« (which has a
much nicer ring to it in the original German).

Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau, Mainz/Mayence, Germany ................. anselm@strathspey.org
I know that a few tender souls will feel that there must be something good in
everything, and that I really shouldn't be so negative. So I will say one
favorable thing about the book. Holding it in my hands did not make my skin
erupt in a horrible disfiguring disease.
-- Geoffrey K. Pullum reviews Simon Heffer's _Strictly English_

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61252 · Hamish Dewar · 22 Jul 2011 13:25:24 · Top

Anselm, I was agreeing with every word you wrote.
Until you referred to "the statutory left shoulder passes" in Mairi's
Wedding. Yes, that's how James Cosh wrote it, but a million dancers can't be
wrong.
Just as a million dancers have made a slight improvement to Bill Hamilton's
original version of that great dance Ian Powries Farewell.
Please don't tell me that the kinky version of Mairi's Wedding is still
official RSCDS policy.
You do know that it took James Cosh eleven years to make an honest woman of
Mairi.
Hamish.

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61253 · Mike Briggs · 22 Jul 2011 14:04:29 · Top

If there is a life hereafter I deserve (and will likely get) a lot of bad things happening to me for all of my sins, but please please not in this life another discussion of the center passes in Mairi's Wedding.  May I restate the rule, applicable to all dances including MW?   Do it the way the deviser wrote it, but if you really want to engage in variations just make sure everyone else in the set knows before you do them.

Now let's all take a vow to leave MW alone.  :-)  :-) (Two for you, Hamish)

Mike Briggs

Oregon, WI USA

Thunderstorm and 73F at 0700

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61254 · campbell · 22 Jul 2011 14:14:15 · Top

Oh, you old spoilsport. I was just gearing up to write THE definitive
position on Mairi's Wedding. See you in hell instead, where we will have a
lot of time to debate it.

Campbell Tyler
Cape town

>If there is a life hereafter I deserve (and will likely get) a lot of bad
things happening to me for all of my sins, but please please not in this
life another discussion of the center passes in Mairi's Wedding.  May I
restate the rule, applicable to all dances including MW?   Do it the way the
deviser wrote it, but if you really want to engage in variations just make
sure everyone else in the set knows before you do them.

Now let's all take a vow to leave MW alone.  :-)  :-) (Two for you, Hamish)

Mike Briggs

Oregon, WI USA

Thunderstorm and 73F at 0700

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6315 (20110722) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6315 (20110722) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61255 · Anselm Lingnau · 22 Jul 2011 14:31:55 · Top

Hamish Dewar wrote:

> Until you referred to "the statutory left shoulder passes" in Mairi's
> Wedding. Yes, that's how James Cosh wrote it, but a million dancers can't
> be wrong.

Here we go again …

I was talking about Mairi's Wedding as a propaedeutic exercise for Polharrow
Burn. I fervently hope that even if you subscribe to the popular
interpretation of Mairi's Wedding, you will at least dance Polharrow Burn the
way Hugh Foss wrote it, i.e., with left-shoulder passes between the reels. So
I also hope you will agree that Mairi's Wedding as an exercise for Polharrow
Burn only makes sense with left-shoulder passes, no matter what people will
otherwise do when dancing Mairi's Wedding as a fun dance on its own merits.
The whole point of the exercise is to show dancing couples their track for
Polharrow Burn, but in a less confusing setting. If you object to Mairi's
Wedding being (ab)used in this way, feel free to employ The White Rose of
Scotland instead, or use some other method that works for you; this method
works for me.

Having said that, in my class I generally try to teach dances according to
what the description says. In the case of Mairi's Wedding, the description
says, in large friendly letters, »Pass left shoulder«. I tell people to expect
right-shoulder passes »in the wild«, and suggest they try both versions to see
what they like better (after all, you get two turns as dancing couple, so you
can experiment). What people do outside of my class is their business, not
mine, and I would not presume to tell them what to do.

I do have an issue with »teachers« who pass off the right-shoulder-pass
version of Mairi's Wedding as the »correct« one. Especially because that will
lead to people using right-shoulder passes in *any* dance involving diagonal
half reels of four (such as Polharrow Burn or Irish Rover), simply because
they don't know any other method.

> Please don't tell me that the kinky version of Mairi's Wedding is still
> official RSCDS policy.

Mairi's Wedding is not an RSCDS-published dance, so the RSCDS is
understandably silent on the matter.

Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau, Mainz/Mayence, Germany ................. anselm@strathspey.org
Life has taught us that love does not consist in gazing at each other but in
looking outward together in the same direction. -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61262 · Steve Wyrick · 22 Jul 2011 17:24:23 · Top

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Anselm Lingnau <anselm@strathspey.org>wrote:

> Hamish Dewar wrote:
>
> > Until you referred to "the statutory left shoulder passes" in Mairi's
> > Wedding. Yes, that's how James Cosh wrote it, but a million dancers can't
> > be wrong.
>
> Here we go again …
>
> "As a discussion on the Strathspey forum grows longer, the probability of
mentioning right-shoulder passes in "Mairi's Wedding" approaches 1..."
--
Steve Wyrick -- Walnut Creek, California

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61256 · Agnes MacMichael · 22 Jul 2011 14:37:23 · Top

I did not really want to get involved in this thread but feel obliged to
regarding Ian Powrie's Farewell To Auchterarder, written by Bill Hamilton.
Hamish, did Bill give you permission to make the slight 'improvement' to his
dance?
Agnes
West Lothian

On 22 July 2011 12:25, Hamish Dewar <hamish@hdewar.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Anselm, I was agreeing with every word you wrote.
> Until you referred to "the statutory left shoulder passes" in Mairi's
> Wedding. Yes, that's how James Cosh wrote it, but a million dancers can't be
> wrong.
> Just as a million dancers have made a slight improvement to Bill Hamilton's
> original version of that great dance Ian Powries Farewell.
> Please don't tell me that the kinky version of Mairi's Wedding is still
> official RSCDS policy.
> You do know that it took James Cosh eleven years to make an honest woman of
> Mairi.
> Hamish.
>

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61258 · Hamish Dewar · 22 Jul 2011 15:56:52 · Top

No Agnes, Bill Hamilton didn't give me permission to change his dance.
I wouldn't dare take on such formidable figures on the SCD scene as Bill (or
your good self). [(:-)]
But according to Paul Bond, of Bond CribCard fame (predecessor to
Minicribs), Bill changed his mind about it himself.
Thanks by the way to the Princes Street Gardens group here in Edinburgh for
introducing me last week to another excellent dance devised by Bill: A Wee
Touch o' Class.
Hamish.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Agnes Macmichael" <agnes.macmichael@sky.com>
To: <strathspey@strathspey.org>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: Improve our Terminology?

>I did not really want to get involved in this thread but feel obliged to
> regarding Ian Powrie's Farewell To Auchterarder, written by Bill Hamilton.
> Hamish, did Bill give you permission to make the slight 'improvement' to
> his
> dance?
> Agnes

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61260 · Agnes MacMichael · 22 Jul 2011 16:05:39 · Top

Bill said in 'hindsight' the promenade should have been in each direction,
but when I asked, and others, should we now be teaching that, he said 'no',
he wanted it as he had first said it and that was the same direction each
time!
Also, I agree with you on his other dance 'A Wee Touch O' Class' it is a
lovely wee dance and we have done it often.
Agnes
West Lothian

On 22 July 2011 14:56, Hamish Dewar <hamish@hdewar.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> No Agnes, Bill Hamilton didn't give me permission to change his dance.
> I wouldn't dare take on such formidable figures on the SCD scene as Bill
> (or your good self). [(:-)]
> But according to Paul Bond, of Bond CribCard fame (predecessor to
> Minicribs), Bill changed his mind about it himself.
> Thanks by the way to the Princes Street Gardens group here in Edinburgh for
> introducing me last week to another excellent dance devised by Bill: A Wee
> Touch o' Class.
> Hamish.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Agnes Macmichael" <
> agnes.macmichael@sky.com>
> To: <strathspey@strathspey.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 1:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Improve our Terminology?
>
>
>
> I did not really want to get involved in this thread but feel obliged to
>> regarding Ian Powrie's Farewell To Auchterarder, written by Bill Hamilton.
>> Hamish, did Bill give you permission to make the slight 'improvement' to
>> his
>> dance?
>> Agnes
>>
>
>

Dancers can be wrong ( was Improve our Terminology?)

Message 61470 · Iain Boyd · 31 Jul 2011 23:47:44 · Top

Hamish wrote -

"Until you referred to "the statutory left shoulder passes" in Mairi's
Wedding. Yes, that's how James Cosh wrote it, but a million dancers
can't be wrong."

Oh, yes, a million dancers can be wrong!

 
Iain Boyd

Postal Address -

P O Box 11-404
Wellington 6142
New Zealand

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61248 · Angus Henry · 22 Jul 2011 05:22:27 · Top

Hello Ian

Except that as the confusion already exists with numerous books using either, any confirmed approach now could only help clarify things for the future. (Also pencils are very useful implements for SCD reachers -- I am sure I am not alone in having shelves of booklets and leaflets already liberally annotated!) :-)

For the same reason I support (and use) the use of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th corner (positions).

Angus

Angus & Puka Henry
DARWIN, AUSTRALIA
Website: <http://www.users.on.net/~anguka/>

On 22-07-2011, at 5:57 , Ian Brockbank wrote:

> Hi Angus,
>
>> I suggest that using "Corner" to mean ONLY corner position is the logical
> and
>> practical way to go. Try teaching a dance like Polharrow Burn or other 5
> and 7
>> couple dances in which the person who starts as a dancing couple's 1st
> corner
>> can end up anywhere else in the set; a dancer's corner position identifies
> the
>> same positional relationship each time, but the person who occupies it
>> doesn't really matter as long as the correct dancer gets to the place in
> time.
>> This approach also helps dancers to learn the structural concept of the
> dance
>> and so dance it easily from whichever position they are in, rather than
> "but
>> Joe Blow was to my left before and is now opposite me - why?"
>
> While I would also prefer this, I think it is too late to mandate this now -
> there is
> too much already which has it the other way round, so it would be confusing
> looking at historical books even if everything did get republished.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ian Brockbank
> Edinburgh, Scotland
> ian@scottishdance.net
> www.scottishdance.net
>

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61238 · Anja Breest · 21 Jul 2011 10:41:28 · Top

Well, I can't give you an example, but sometimes it is easier to know who your
first corner person is  ;-)
What I have in mind is a dance where you do somethig with first corner (person),
places are changed somewho andyou do something with your first corner person
AGAIN evn if this person s standing soewhere else.
 
Don't let us forget different people memorize things differently.
There are a lot of dancers who think in patterns and 1st-4th corner positions is
best for them.
Others think in faces - they prefer the "person" description - and for  equal
reasons find it easier to think of partners 1st corner person - maybe because
they know who is a "man" and a "woman" and which is there own status at the
moment ;-)
 
I agree it should be CLEAR in a description. So I vote for 1st corner should
ALWAYS be 1st corner person in 1st corner position - otherways it should have an
added person or position.
And there is no harm in being redundant (in long descriptions) to make thinks
clear. So "1st corner person (now in 4th corner position)" would help both ways
of thinking. Cribs, as being shortend, should be consistent...
 
Greetings,
Anja
 
 

Campbell Personal <campbell@tyler.co.za> hat am 21. Juli 2011 um 08:29
geschrieben:

> Eric wrote:
> >1.  The notion of "corner".  This can mean "corner position" or "corner
> person". 
>
> Can anyone give me an example of a dance where the instruction "corner
> person" could not be replaced by "corner position"?  It seems to me that
> where the term corner person is used it could equally well have been
> described by saying e.g. 3rd corner (position).  Whenever I teach a dance
> which has "corner person" in the instructions I always change it to the
> equivalent "corner position".  My class consequently knows that when I say
> "corner" they can be sure I mean the position. I have yet to be stuck by a
> dance description to which I could not make this change.  But I wait to be
> proved wrong by the exception.  Can anyone provide it? 
>
>
> PS I have just had to change all the "positions" in the above to "person"
> because rereading it I realised I had mixed the two up.  I rest my case.
>
>
> Campbell Tyler
> Cape Town

>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
> database 6311 (20110720) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com

>
--
Anja Breest
Cologne, Germany

Cologne Scottish Country Dancers
http://www.rscds-cologne.de

Mail:
Strathspeylist: strathspey@rscds-cologne.de
Privat: anja.breest@girards.de

Improve our Terminology?

Message 61236 · campbell · 21 Jul 2011 08:29:39 · Top


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Ferguson [mailto:e.ferguson@antenna.nl]
Sent: 20 July 2011 10:45 PM
To: strathspey@strathspey.org
Subject: Improve our Terminology? (was: Poussette was Pousette)

On 19 Jul 2011 at 20:54, Hamish Dewar wrote (in part):

> <..> The problem with SCD terminology is that it is often
> non-intuitive even counter-intuitive, and too often ambiguous.
> If we are going to put the the world to rights regarding SCD
> terminology <..> what would we propose instead? It's no good
> considering one term in isolation. We have to consider how each term
> is differentiated from other terms.

As writing cribs is part of my "SCD hobby", terminology is much in my mind
(or should I say it has got on my brain?). There are three ambiguities
which I come across regularly

1. The notion of "corner".
This can mean "corner position" or "corner person". In olden days when few
dances were complicated, that was not a problem, but at present how can a
dancer who is told to "turn first corner (meaning
person) know where that corner happens to be (perhaps in fourth corner
(position).)

We should use two different words for these notions. Here are a few
suggestions:

corner position Apex or point or angle
corner person co-partner

or perhaps we could invent entirely new words for both concepts, like "co"
(plural: "coes") for corner person.

I expect we should replace both usages with new words, as the ambiguous
usage is so deeply ingrained (and present in dance
descriptions) that replacing one meaning by a new word still does not
release "corner" for the other meaning exclusively.

2. The naming of corners.
The traditional names are First, Second, Partner's First, Partners
second. This can become very convoluted in dance descriptions and
even more so in cribs.

SUGGESTION: let us officially recognize "First, Second, Third and
Fourth.corners", and preferably use these names as our first choice.

3. "Turn".
Mostly used for "turn another dancer", but also for "turn single"
(i.e. face another way on your own, either turning on the spot, or dancing a
small loop.

Can we give "turn single" a new compact name? In my cribs I use "veer",
"pivot", "swivel" and "face", and (sometimes) "turn". Any better ideas?

Apart from these ambiguities, there are a few movements which occur
frequently, but lack a name. For example;

4. "Half turn partner and face partner close by, and cast out to the
sideline". Sometimes called "Argyll turn", but we know it is better
not to name a formation by a dance.

I would welcome an exchange of views on Strathspey. If we come to agreement
on any item here, that could be made into a proposal to the RSCDS to
standardize the new name in the next revision to the Manual.

Happy dancing,

Eric

--
Eric T. Ferguson,
van Reenenweg 3, 3702 SB ZEIST Netherlands
tel: +31 30-2673638

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6311 (20110720) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6311 (20110720) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Poussette was Pousette

Message 61187 · campbell · 19 Jul 2011 12:51:55 · Top

Martin wrote:
>I disagree, Malcolm. "Poussette", for example, has no other meaning in
English; " "back to back" has. Therefore it is impossible for a dancer to
know whether
> "1st >couple dance back to back" should be taken as Queen's English or
RSCDS English. And this concerns not only new dancers. If "dos y dos" were
adopted (for
> the >figure where two people beginning face to face (!), move round each
other clockwise facing in the same direction the whole time and end face to
face (!), as
> in bars> 17-20 of "Joie de Vivre") then it would become a non-ambiguous
part of the jargon we have to learn, like "skip-change" or "allemande". No
easier, nor
> harder, to learn than anything else. But unambiguous.

Hmm, Martin, I think you have just undone your argument - "skip-change" is
more ambiguous than "back to back". Ask someone to dance back to back
without prior explanation and they will probably wait for you to say back to
back to what. in Queen's English "1st couple dance back to back" requires
an object. But say skip change without prior explanation and they will
probably try to skip whilst changing feet or something similar. No, I think
"back to back" is as acceptable as "skip change" or "set to partners" or any
of the other expressions we have.

> When it comes to "dozey-doh" I would imagine that it is fine for people
who
> do square dancing, but not much help to the rest of us
>
>You've been doing SCD too long, Malcolm ;-)
>Martin

Or perhaps has just seen ceilidh dancers fold their arms and bump each other
off the floor. To me dozy doh is inextricably linked with barn dancing,
from which RSCDS Scottish Country Dancing is distanced.

Campbell Tyler
Cape Town

PS I was somewhat disturbed to be told by Malcolm, on our first meeting each
other in Prague, that he expected me to be much older. Clearly I come
across in Strathspey as a curmudgeonly old gas bag. Sigh, just trying to
see both sides of most stories.

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6306 (20110719) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Poussette was Pousette

Message 61295 · Pia Walker · 24 Jul 2011 11:37:54 · Top

I didn't know I was being 'posh' by not folding my arms, Hamish, I just
don't like to hit people with my elbows :>)

Pia

-----Original Message-----
From: Hamish Dewar [mailto:hamish@hdewar.fsnet.co.uk]
Sent: 18 July 2011 11:22
To: Strathspey list
Subject: Poussette was Pousette

What an erudite lot we have here on The Strathspey Server.
Here' s me thinking that Poussette was the French for kitten.

Since the SCD community is happy with French terms such as Poussette and Pas
de Basque (paddy-bah), why the reluctance to use Dos-a-dos (dozy-doh) rather
than the approved term Back-to-back?
Maybe the fear is (shock horror) that some dancers might be so vulgar as to
fold their arms while dancing the movement.

Previous thread: Guinness Book
Next thread: Guinness Book [Oban Record]
A Django site.