Timeline for Safer alternative to “opaque”?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 30, 2015 at 16:12 | comment | added | CXJ | Yes, I'm being rabidly pedantic here. And yes, I'm an American. ;-) | |
| Jan 30, 2015 at 16:11 | comment | added | CXJ | @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. | |
| Jan 30, 2015 at 1:09 | comment | added | WS2 | @Cyberherbalist Thank you for correcting the typo. May the bird of paradise attend you. | |
| Jan 30, 2015 at 1:05 | comment | added | WS2 | @Spiff Doesn't that rather depend on how you are defining 'sight'? I mean it might be possible to see light through a frosted glass window but for it to be impossible to determine what was on the other side, other than some vague forms. Wouldn't that be impenetrability to sight? | |
| Jan 30, 2015 at 0:55 | history | edited | Cyberherbalist | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
correct spelling of "impenatrable" --> "impenetrable"
|
| Jan 29, 2015 at 22:42 | comment | added | Spiff | @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. :-) | |
| Jan 29, 2015 at 22:20 | history | edited | WS2 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jan 29, 2015 at 22:14 | comment | added | WS2 | @Spiff Is 'impentrable to sight', the same thing as 'impenetrable to light'? I see nothing which implies the latter. | |
| Jan 29, 2015 at 21:46 | comment | added | Spiff | @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. | |
| Jan 29, 2015 at 21:31 | comment | added | Andrew Leach♦ | 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. | |
| Jan 29, 2015 at 21:30 | comment | added | Hot Licks | Ah, but by "light" do you mean visible light, ultraviolet, infrared, or anything in the electromagnetic spectrum? | |
| Jan 29, 2015 at 21:23 | history | edited | WS2 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 252 characters in body
|
| Jan 29, 2015 at 21:12 | history | answered | WS2 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |