Number Of Bellow Folds ?

[Peter Brook]

I think 7 folds (peaks) would be an advantage.

 

I have six on my Norman C/G and often play chords and tune which leads to a lot of air button use, particularly playing in G, D and A.

 

BTW The depth of fold is not that big on my Norman - visually comparing to cplayer's Jefferies the other night his seemed about twice as deep.

[Dave Prebble]

To "Bellow" in English is to let out a load roar or shout as load as you can,or the bellow of a bull or cow.

Fire bellows or Blacksmiths bellows have as far as I know always had the s on the end.

Al

 

 

Indeed so Alan!

 

Time for me to bellow my reply !

 

Bellows are bellows, bellows folds are bellows folds and are always counted by the peaks and, since we were never invaded by Russia, ever will it remain so.

 

I prefer to trust my meagre 50 or so years of speaking the language and the hundreds of years of study of both historical and current English usage upon which the Oxford Dictionary is based.

 

What was good enough for the Englishmen of Chaucer's day and before, is good enough for me.

 

(....from stage right - distant strains of 'There'll always be an England' are heard on solo concertina .....)

 

Regards

 

Dave

[Marien]

About two years ago I had new 7 fold bellows made for my CG and GD boxes (A rare present from the Taxman). Originally I had six fold bellows on each.

Many of you know I play English style and Duet style on the Anglo.The extra fold on my GD has made all the difference and some tunes that were restricted to the CG owing to air problems I can now play easily on both boxes.This leads me to the question of ultimate bellow fold numbers,For Irish music playing it would seem that a small number of folds is sufficient ,but English style requires a greater number.For me a CG Anglo ultimate would be six or seven for GD definitely seven, or for some perhaps eight.It has been traditional for instruments to have six fold bellows, but I am wondering if this should not be re examined.

I certainly would not want a huge number of folds enough to polish my shoes when I play and the larger the number the more difficult they are to control,particularly if any of you have played a miniature.So with this all in mind what number of bellow folds do you think is correct ?

Al

 

Hey Al,

 

With french and other continental tunes I play lots of chords on my C/G and D/G (6 fold) anglo's. Some tunes keep in the same chord for a long time time, making me wish to pull an extra fold out of the bellows. If 6 folds is correct on a MacCann duet, and even 8 folds is correct on a Crane duet, why wouldn't 10 folds be correct on an anglo? In practice, I think that for chord players, 9 folds would be very good. Just for a couple of tunes that really need a larger air bag.

 

To be clear about the meaning of the word "fold", with "9 fold" I mean that the bellows have 9 "top of the mountain" folds and 10 "down the hill" folds.

 

Before everybody starts buying 21 folds bellows it may be good to check another windy dream. Obviously pads, valves and all reed chambers must be air tight. Also the tolerance of the reeds makes a difference. If there is more space between the reed and the frame, the compression will be lower. Even when the reed plays well, air may be spilled when the reed is played (especially on the low notes). But if that would be the case I do not see another solution than by replacing reeds (or frames).

 

Marien Lina

[Marien]

English language and usage are neither defined by nor dependent upon the Russian language.

 

Are you kidding?

However, Scissors consist of two pieces, and species can't describe single animal.

Can you say "This scissors is sharp and does a good job"? It's always "This pair of scissors", no? Don't know about species, always thought there is singlular "Specie", hm.

Strange to hear "One Bellows" though. Kind of awkward.

And I come from Russian side of the English, which stands for "Opinionated", therefore my definitions are way deeper than the Oxford Dictionary.

Who is that Oxford, anyways?

 

 

I cannot read it, today I left my spectacle is in my other trouser. If I only had some specie...

well, two times a specie is not two species (unless they are in different currency?).

 

But no kidding. This started with bellows.

 

Every language has his own pecularities. You can say "the bellows is" and it has a history in England, but the english language is a couple of hundred years older than the Oxford dictionary, so, the inventor of the word bellows will not be alive anymore, and I cannot proove all of the following. The word bellows appears to originate from the (anglo-saxon) german word "Balg" (this also counts for bag and belly). Both bellows and balg refer to the body (in germany "balg" is originally referring to the belly and in english "bellows" to the lungs). While most of the peoples in the middle ages that the same number of lungs as I have (two), the expression is likely to have evolved to have a pair of bellows. This has been used for the bellows for the fire place, where the pair of bellows took over the function of the lungs (just as the bellows for a bagpipe did). Later peoples forgot the original meaning of the pair of bellows as the lungs, classifying and using it singular. Anyone from Oxford who can correct me?

[JimLucas]

...I cannot proove all of the following. The word bellows appears to originate from the (anglo-saxon) german word "Balg" (this also counts for bag and belly). Both bellows and balg refer to the body (in germany "balg" is originally referring to the belly and in english "bellows" to the lungs). While most of the peoples in the middle ages that the same number of lungs as I have (two), the expression is likely to have evolved to have a pair of bellows. This has been used for the bellows for the fire place, where the pair of bellows took over the function of the lungs (just as the bellows for a bagpipe did). Later peoples forgot the original meaning of the pair of bellows as the lungs, classifying and using it singular. Anyone from Oxford who can correct me?

My copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary indicates that in English "bag" doesn't derive from the same earlier word(s) as"bellows", and that "bellows" derives from a two-word expression that meant "blowing bag". Yours is a good story, though, and without the details of intermediate evolutionary stages, neither scenario seems obvious to me.

[Peter Brook]

Not sure how long the OED can be relied on to be the arbiter of correct English, given that less than 20% of English speakers reside or have resided in the four “home” nations of England, Scotland, Wales and “Norn Iron”.

 

By shear weight of numbers the language will change in a huge number of unpredictable ways.

 

The English saying “that’s not English” will be as relevant as Canute to the tide…

 

 

edited to add that I have spent several years as a sub-editor, to give one example "electronic mail" has gone to "e-mail" and now to "email" in a relatively short span, but the thing that has really got to me in recent times is stuff like "coming to visit with you November 4". It seems so much more polite to write (or speak) "coming to visit on November the 4th"

Edited May 8, 2007 by Peter Brook

[Dave Prebble]

...I cannot proove all of the following. The word bellows appears to originate from the (anglo-saxon) german word "Balg" (this also counts for bag and belly). Both bellows and balg refer to the body (in germany "balg" is originally referring to the belly and in english "bellows" to the lungs). While most of the peoples in the middle ages that the same number of lungs as I have (two), the expression is likely to have evolved to have a pair of bellows. This has been used for the bellows for the fire place, where the pair of bellows took over the function of the lungs (just as the bellows for a bagpipe did). Later peoples forgot the original meaning of the pair of bellows as the lungs, classifying and using it singular. Anyone from Oxford who can correct me?

My copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary indicates that in English "bag" doesn't derive from the same earlier word(s) as"bellows", and that "bellows" derives from a two-word expression that meant "blowing bag". Yours is a good story, though, and without the details of intermediate evolutionary stages, neither scenario seems obvious to me.

 

 

The expression 'Pair of Bellows' derives from the fact that, in their earliest form, they were a two handled tool and, in their later and larger form, that they were just that, a pair of bellows which were separated by a driven central dividing board and designed to act on both the up and down stroke. I used to be the 'engine' for just such a set when, as young chap, I worked for a farrier.

Other than in official or formal written descriptions, such as wills, manifests bills of sale and the like, in spoken English, the whole set up has most likely for centuries past just been referred to as 'the bellows' for short .... we certainly did. This word usage would have carried over quite naturally as a singular noun to describe a similar looking device fitted to a concertina. 'Half a pair of bellows' is just a little unwieldy don't you think?

 

Peter,

You not seriously suggesting that they speak English in America are you ???

 

I quite agree with you. Evolution of the language is of course unstoppable. We speak far more than we write and certainly don't check on grammar and spelling before we open our mouths. As you correctly point out sheer weight of numbers will change language ... 'twas ever thus'.

 

A handful of folks in this forum proposing, to suit their own logic, that the word bellow(s) should be changed one way or the other would hardly qualify as an overwhelming change in general usage. If the case were any different I would ask the OED to settle the matter by changing the word bellows to 'windybags' ....... or should that be 'windybag' ???

 

Regards

 

Dave

[david_boveri]

...I cannot proove all of the following. The word bellows appears to originate from the (anglo-saxon) german word "Balg" (this also counts for bag and belly). Both bellows and balg refer to the body (in germany "balg" is originally referring to the belly and in english "bellows" to the lungs). While most of the peoples in the middle ages that the same number of lungs as I have (two), the expression is likely to have evolved to have a pair of bellows. This has been used for the bellows for the fire place, where the pair of bellows took over the function of the lungs (just as the bellows for a bagpipe did). Later peoples forgot the original meaning of the pair of bellows as the lungs, classifying and using it singular. Anyone from Oxford who can correct me?

My copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary indicates that in English "bag" doesn't derive from the same earlier word(s) as"bellows", and that "bellows" derives from a two-word expression that meant "blowing bag". Yours is a good story, though, and without the details of intermediate evolutionary stages, neither scenario seems obvious to me.

 

 

The expression 'Pair of Bellows' derives from the fact that, in their earliest form, they were a two handled tool and, in their later and larger form, that they were just that, a pair of bellows which were separated by a driven central dividing board and designed to act on both the up and down stroke. I used to be the 'engine' for just such a set when, as young chap, I worked for a farrier.

Other than in official or formal written descriptions, such as wills, manifests bills of sale and the like, in spoken English, the whole set up has most likely for centuries past just been referred to as 'the bellows' for short .... we certainly did. This word usage would have carried over quite naturally as a singular noun to describe a similar looking device fitted to a concertina. 'Half a pair of bellows' is just a little unwieldy don't you think?

 

Peter,

You not seriously suggesting that they speak English in America are you ???

 

I quite agree with you. Evolution of the language is of course unstoppable. We speak far more than we write and certainly don't check on grammar and spelling before we open our mouths. As you correctly point out sheer weight of numbers will change language ... 'twas ever thus'.

 

A handful of folks in this forum proposing, to suit their own logic, that the word bellow(s) should be changed one way or the other would hardly qualify as an overwhelming change in general usage. If the case were any different I would ask the OED to settle the matter by changing the word bellows to 'windybags' ....... or should that be 'windybag' ???

 

Regards

 

Dave

 

i always thought that bellow referred to a single fold, just as pant was the single leg. rarely do i ever have a pant laying around, and i've never dropped a bellow from my concertina, but i have seen a bellow hit into another bellow...

[Marien]

My copy of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary indicates that in English "bag" doesn't derive from the same earlier word(s) as"bellows", and that "bellows" derives from a two-word expression that meant "blowing bag". Yours is a good story, though, and without the details of intermediate evolutionary stages, neither scenario seems obvious to me.

 

Guess you are right that "bag" has another origin. For what it is worth, my non-Oxfordian etymology sources told me that "Bellows" comes from "Belowes" (in middle english) and "Belgas" or "Belg" (in old english) and it claims that it came from "bhelgh" in indo-europen origins. The german word Balg obviously comes from the same word. Probably a thousand years before the concertina and the accordion have been invented...java script:emoticon('', 'smid_15')

[Ivan Viehoff]

The phenomenon of words that exist only in the plural exists in several languages, certainly Latin, Czech and English in my direct experience. But that is irrelevant, except in confirming our comfort with the concept, because trying to make the grammar of one language (eg Latin) act as a model for the grammar of another (eg English) is an error that was still current when I was at school, but is less often made today. These days on encountering an undocumented language a linguist will discover its rules by listening to what people say. This is effective, because we now know that native speakers instinctively know and respect their language's rules, and differences between speakers are more often dialectical rather than errors or idiosyncrasies. So, even in English, the answer to "what are the rules?" is determined by "what do people commonly say?", preferably when acting on instinct rather than thinking too carefully about it, assuming that we are dealing with every day language.

 

Commonly used words that exist only in the plural in English include trousers, shorts, and scissors. Unless you think too hard about it, you will find yourself instinctively saying "these trousers are cotton, these scissors are steel", thus confirming that these words are grammatically plural, not words that just happen to end in s. I am sure that the word "bellows" is like those, because I am sure I would instinctively say "these bellows are made of leather". The reason that in the first half of that sentence, (and also in this sentence), the word "bellows" could also precede a singular verb is because the noun phrase "the word 'bellows'" acts as singular.