Subject:
|
Re: On obscure color conversions.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.mlcad
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:17:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1981 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.mlcad, Jeff Boen writes:
> As long as we're taking the time to be official, we should also be correct.
> "Trans" color names shouldn't be short for "Transparent" because transparent
> means a lack of color. The "Trans" should be short for "Translucent" which
> means letting light partially through. The only (sort of) "transparent" lego
> are clear bricks.. so Trans-Orange, Trans-Red, etc. are actually "Translucent
> Orange" or "Translucent Red"
>
> :)
>
> Just my nitpick, I'm a stickler for semantics
>
> J
That's not the way I learned the difference between transparent and
translucent. So, I dug out my mini dictionary and looked 'em up:
Transparent: "Capable of transmitting light so that objects and images beyond
can be clearly perceived."
Translucent: "Admitting and diffusing light so that objects beyond cannot be
cleary perceived."
So, "transparent red" is accurate, since you can still clearly see through
it...
JohnG, GMLTC
(I suppose I should give credit for the definitions: They're from
my "Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary".)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: On obscure color conversions.
|
| (...) As long as we're taking the time to be official, we should also be correct. The "Trans" color names shouldn't be short for "Transparent" because transparent means a lack of color. The "Trans" should be short for "Translucent" which means (...) (24 years ago, 24-Oct-00, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
