Re: Abbreviation query Posted by anymouse 9/12/2008 2:44:00 PM
"I see no reason whatsoever that what you call the formal definition "would lead one to believe" that CBMP and rotational movement are mutually exclusive."
Really? Perhaps you need to reread that definition where it says (in the version posted here)
"giving the appearance of CBM having been used, but without turning the body"
I think it's quite counterintuitive that you can rotate while doing something that has "without turning" in it's definition. The issue is not the difference between rotating and turn, the issue is that CBMP is define to not be a result of rotation during the step, however rotation can also occur as long as it is not the cause of the CBMP.
"Not only does the second quotation contradict the first"
It does not in anyway contradict it!
"one but you're the first person to use the words "rotating" and "rotation" in this thread."
The issue is not between the loose usage of "turn" and my choice of the more precise "rotate" but that the issue of lack of rotation (or turn if you prefer) is part of the definition of CBMP as an element, but does not restrict it's application.
CBMP is independent of turn and rotation, because CBMP is defined not to be the result of them.
But the inexperienced person trying to puzzle out dancing from the definitions would mistakenly conclude that CBMP is incompatible with rotation.
CBMP and CBM are fundamentally independent - the connection is in the historic derivation of their names, not in their execution or application.