Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

11
  • 12
    I don't know -- "non-transparent" would be more likely to be confused with "translucent" than "opaque" would.
    – Hot Licks
    Commented Jan 29, 2015 at 20:34
  • How can you confuse NON-transparent with translucent?
    – user66974
    Commented Jan 29, 2015 at 20:36
  • If you told someone you had two pieces of glass, one "non-transparent" and one "opaque", I'm guessing that most would pick the second as obscuring things better.
    – Hot Licks
    Commented Jan 29, 2015 at 20:40
  • 1
    @Josh The ambiguity is that some people use ‘opaque’ to mean ‘preventing light from getting through (but not necessarily 100% of it)’. Something like ‘completely opaque’ cannot possibly make any sense unless you interpret the completely as reinforcing the blocking of the light, making it unambiguously mean ‘preventing any light whatsoever from getting through’. ‘Totally translucent’ makes absolutely no sense to me, like saying something is ‘completely semi-transparent’, whereas ‘completely opaque’ is perfectly understandable and unambiguous. Commented Jan 29, 2015 at 21:44
  • 1
    Referring to an opaque object as "non-transparent" is like referring to forks as "non-spoons"; not inaccurate, but also not useful.
    – bcrist
    Commented Jan 30, 2015 at 2:55