On 2004-09-27 09:55:36 +0200, allnor@tele.ntnu.no (Rune Allnor) said:> That's another word I never understood. What does "scope" in > "Telescope" refer to? Visual aid (as in oscilloscope, microscope) > or "extension", i.e how one operated the early versions? Does > "telescope" refer to operateion, so that any later conjunctions between > '-scope' and 'visual aide' are derived from the 'telescope'? The name > should, ideally, refer to function, what the thing helps you do. One > "sees far" with it, hence it should be named "television", shouldn't it?Along the same line you could argue that it should be called "Macrovision", because you see things larger than you do with the unaided eye alone... :-) -- Stephan M. Bernsee http://www.dspdimension.com
Plural Hertz.
Started by ●September 26, 2004
Reply by ●September 29, 20042004-09-29
Reply by ●September 29, 20042004-09-29
On 2004-09-27 16:37:46 +0200, "Clay Turner" <physics@bellsouth.net> said:> > "Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message > news:f56893ae.0409262342.60ebedab@posting.google.com... >> >> Which reminds me, is 'data' singular or plural? >> > > Rune, > > Data - plural > Datum - singular > > Now a confusing difference between American and Imperial English is the > treatment of collective nouns. American English treats collective nouns as > singular, so we would say "The data is ....." And the other guys will say > "The data are ......" > > ClayNow here comes a difficult question: what about the word "evidence"? I always thought it would be an uncountable noun, too (ie. the word "evidences" doesn't exist, explicit singular would be denoted by saying "a piece of evidence"), but as a matter of fact I came across "evidences" used increasingly in recent books and papers... :-) -- Stephan M. Bernsee http://www.dspdimension.com
Reply by ●September 29, 20042004-09-29
Stephan M. Bernsee wrote:> On 2004-09-27 09:55:36 +0200, allnor@tele.ntnu.no (Rune Allnor) said: > >> That's another word I never understood. What does "scope" in >> "Telescope" refer to? Visual aid (as in oscilloscope, microscope) >> or "extension", i.e how one operated the early versions? Does >> "telescope" refer to operateion, so that any later conjunctions >> between '-scope' and 'visual aide' are derived from the 'telescope'? >> The name should, ideally, refer to function, what the thing helps you >> do. One "sees far" with it, hence it should be named "television", >> shouldn't it? > > > Along the same line you could argue that it should be called > "Macrovision", because you see things larger than you do with the > unaided eye alone... :-)Following the construction of "microscope", shouldn't a macroscope be a device for looking at large things? Jerry -- ... they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, ... and that therefor ... they more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one ... A. H. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●September 29, 20042004-09-29
Stephan M. Bernsee wrote:> On 2004-09-27 16:37:46 +0200, "Clay Turner" <physics@bellsouth.net> said: > >> >> "Rune Allnor" <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote in message >> news:f56893ae.0409262342.60ebedab@posting.google.com... >> >>> >>> Which reminds me, is 'data' singular or plural? >>> >> >> Rune, >> >> Data - plural >> Datum - singular >> >> Now a confusing difference between American and Imperial English is the >> treatment of collective nouns. American English treats collective >> nouns as >> singular, so we would say "The data is ....." And the other guys will say >> "The data are ......" >> >> Clay > > > Now here comes a difficult question: what about the word "evidence"? I > always thought it would be an uncountable noun, too (ie. the word > "evidences" doesn't exist, explicit singular would be denoted by saying > "a piece of evidence"), but as a matter of fact I came across > "evidences" used increasingly in recent books and papers... > > :-)Clearly, the language is deteriorating, just as it's been doing for thousands of years. Will it ever end? Jerry -- ... they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, ... and that therefor ... they more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one ... A. H. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●September 29, 20042004-09-29
On 2004-09-29 22:08:24 +0200, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> said:> Following the construction of "microscope", shouldn't a macroscope be a > device for looking at large things? > > JerryYes exactly - a telescope is the opposite of a microscope... and stars are usually quite large :-) -- Stephan M. Bernsee http://www.dspdimension.com
Reply by ●September 29, 20042004-09-29
Stephan M. Bernsee wrote:> On 2004-09-29 22:08:24 +0200, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> said: > >> Following the construction of "microscope", shouldn't a macroscope be a >> device for looking at large things? >> >> Jerry > > > Yes exactly - a telescope is the opposite of a microscope... and stars > are usually quite large :-)Not exactly opposite in purpose or flavor. A telescope is used to look at distant objects, while a microscope is used to look at small ones, presumably nearby. I recall a setup I assembled that used a Questar to provide a magnified view of a small object in an annealing furnace. The effecting magnification was similar to what one gets with a dissecting microscope -- about ten power -- but the distance warranted the term "telescope". Would you approve "telemicroscope"? I also had need one time of a microscope objective with a long working distance. A 40-power microscope no part of which comes closer than a centimeter from the objective could also be called a telemicroscope. But a microtelescope would be a very small instrument. Even some knowledgeable authors write "microphotograph" when they mean "photomicrograph". As I wrote earlier, the language is deteriorating. Jerry -- Where are we going? What are we doing in this hand basket? �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●September 29, 20042004-09-29
Stephan M. Bernsee wrote:
> On 2004-09-29 22:08:24 +0200, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> said:
>
>> Following the construction of "microscope", shouldn't a macroscope be a
>> device for looking at large things?
>>
>> Jerry
>
>
>
> Yes exactly - a telescope is the opposite of a microscope... and
stars are usually quite large
Not exactly opposite in purpose or flavor. A telescope is used to look
at distant objects, while a microscope is used to look at small ones,
presumably nearby. I recall a setup I assembled that used a Questar to
provide a magnified view of a small object in an annealing furnace. The
effective magnification was similar to what one gets with a dissecting
microscope -- about ten power -- but the distance warranted the term
"telescope". Would you approve "telemicroscope"? I also had need one
time of a microscope objective with a long working distance. A 40-power
microscope no part of which comes closer than a centimeter from the
objective could also be called a telemicroscope. But a microtelescope
would be a very small instrument.
Even some knowledgeable authors write "microphotograph" when they mean
"photomicrograph". As I wrote earlier, the language is deteriorating.
Jerry
--
Where are we going? What are we doing in this hand basket?
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●September 29, 20042004-09-29
Stephan M. Bernsee wrote:> On 2004-09-29 22:08:24 +0200, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> said: > >> Following the construction of "microscope", shouldn't a macroscope be a >> device for looking at large things? >> >> Jerry > > > Yes exactly - a telescope is the opposite of a microscope... and stars > are usually quite large :-)Many years ago, I assembled a 3", f/15 refractor from bought optics and home-made mounting parts. When it came time to try it out, the only eyepiece I had on hand -- 10 mm -- gave about 115 power. I hadn't yet made a finder, but I pointed the telescope in the general direction of a house about 250 yards away. I looked for a dark-to-light transition in order to best assess contrast. The image (inverted, of course) was sharp and clear once focused with only a tinge of secondary color. I couldn't recognize what I had been focusing on, It was a black nearly vertical bar in half the field, and white (which I correctly deduced to be house paint) in the other. The only features were a light border line on the black, and a circular object on it. I walked over to and examined the house, and finally figured out that the dark was part of the house number, and the circular object was the head of a decorative nail (escutcheon pin) that held it in place. Not all telescopic objects are large. 8-) Jerry -- ... they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, ... and that therefor ... they more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one ... A. H. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●September 29, 20042004-09-29
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:09:20 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:>Even some knowledgeable authors write "microphotograph" when they mean >"photomicrograph". As I wrote earlier, the language is deteriorating. > >JerryNo it aren't! Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp. My opinions may not be Intel's opinions. http://www.ericjacobsen.org
