NavList:

   

Reply

Frank wrote:

> Just remember that the OED also includes 'incorrect' usages since, by
> their standards, usage is king, and therefore there's almost no such
> thing as incorrect usage (apart from pure typographic errors). So, for
> example, "irregardless" is in the OED despite the fact that no one
> with any pride in their usage of English would be caught dead using
> it. For scientific terminology, there's clearly correct usage and
> incorrect usage.

So true. Wasn't "gourmet" a noun only at one time?  Could a non deity
actually sit on a "dock" in bygone eras?

The digital world is especially guilty of slaughtering meanings. "Font"
until perhaps twenty years or less ago described one specific variation of a
type face family at one size; not the entire family or range of sizes.

I read reviews of digital cameras referring to a larger sensor array
(despite the same number of pixels as the smaller array) as providing better
detail because of "bigger pixels."  What gibberish.  A pixel is a discreet
or logical unit.  A lager "bucket" in a larger array may increase dynamic
range or  signal-to-noise ratio (at the cost of aliasing problems) but red
25, blue 56, green 133 is the same despite the "size" of the pixel.

Could authors (books and software developers) also learn to distinguish
between lines per inch (lpi, a printer's halftone term), dots per inch (dpi,
also a printer's halftone term) and pixels per inch (ppi)?

End of rant.

Bill


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply