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.

9
  • 1
    Ah, but by "light" do you mean visible light, ultraviolet, infrared, or anything in the electromagnetic spectrum?
    – Hot Licks
    Commented Jan 29, 2015 at 21:30
  • 1
    Penetrable, I think. Also: this would be easier to follow if the formatting was better. Markdown handles numbered lists and a linebreak can be forced by ending a line with two spaces.
    – Andrew Leach
    Commented Jan 29, 2015 at 21:31
  • 2
    @WS2 I don't see how you can say "none of the meanings imply complete impenatrability [sic] to light" when definition 2 agrees with me: "2. a. Not transmitting light, not transparent or translucent; impenetrable to sight. Also fig. b. Not transmitting a form of radiation other than light, as sound, heat, or X-rays. Freq. with to.". Note they're using "transmit" as "allow to pass through", in contrast to how they use "emitting" in 1. b.
    – Spiff
    Commented Jan 29, 2015 at 21:46
  • 3
    @WS2 When "impenetrable to sight" is offered as further explanation of "Not transmitting light, not transparent or translucent" in the same definition, it's certainly the same thing as "impenetrable to light". Unless perhaps if one were to believe that sight is a mysterious sensory experience that doesn't involve light. :-)
    – Spiff
    Commented Jan 29, 2015 at 22:42
  • 1
    @WS2 No, it does not depend on how one defines 'sight'. Spiff is right here. The "impenetrable to sight" is merely explanatory of what "Not transmitting light" results in. Opaque does indeed mean "no transmission of light of any kind at all" but far too many Americans are ignorant of their own language these days. The real problem comes from complete idiots misusing the language, because they are lazy and uneducated (in the sense of "not bothering to take advantage of the education they were provided"). It might be a losing cause, however. Language changes all the time.
    – CXJ
    Commented Jan 30, 2015 at 16:11