<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font size="-1"><font face="Georgia">I wrote</font></font><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:49E2F2F5.6060202@paris-sorbonne.fr" type="cite"><font
face="Courier"><small><font face="Georgia">my old harmony teachers
gave us
rules (mainly, a formal ban on vi-V) that I interpret now, after many
years, as meaning that I-vi can only be T––>S<.<br>
</font></small></font></blockquote>
This is elliptic to the point of unintelligibility, excuse me. <br>
<br>
What I mean is that my old teacher would have rejected reading, say,
vi-V-I as Tp<–D–>T (a pendular movement). I think that Simon
Sechter also would have considered vi-V as implying an understood ii in
between, with the result that vi would appear as IV<sup><</sup> in a
chain of dominant vectors: I–>IV<sup><</sup> (–>ii–>) V – a
reading that ressembles the double emploi, but implies sort of a double
substitution, from S<sup><</sup> to Sp, which furiously resembles a
dominant vector, S<sup><</sup> –> Sp. It is difficult to
disentangle such cases without their context.<br>
<br>
Yours,<br>
<br>
Nicolas Meeùs<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nicolas.meeus@paris-sorbonne.fr">nicolas.meeus@paris-sorbonne.fr</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.plm.paris-sorbonne.fr">http://www.plm.paris-sorbonne.fr</a><br>
</body>
</html>