TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: luminous vs. light as adjectives From:Robert Bononno <bononno -at- ACF2 -dot- NYU -dot- EDU> Date:Mon, 14 Feb 1994 23:51:57 -0500
On Sun, 13 Feb 1994, Paul David Marvel wrote:
> Yeah, I see the problem with the logic, but I think I've found a
> dog that hunts.
Arf, arf. Where did you dig that one up?
> In physics, the words on this list which have luminous in the
> English gloss refer to brightness of visible light. For example,
> the total rate of energy coming from an EM source is its radiant
> flux, measured in watts. The part that's in the visible spectrum
> is its luminous flux, measured in lumens. The other terms work
> the same way. This should also account for the photon in your
> previous post.
I guess this would work. Seems like we're back to luminous as a measure
of quantity and light as a property of "light."
How would this account for photon though, which would be a photon of
visible light (not being quantified here). Maybe there is no logic to
(I'm also having trouble with Pine. I have a ton of mail messages and
Pine stops responding from time to time. Grrrr..........)
> I don't know enough technical French vocabulary to confirm or
> deny so let me know if plan B works with terms not on this list.
> If it does, I think we can call luminous a modifier.
It's definitely a modifier <g>, but what do I do with "light".
> On Sat, 12 Feb 1994, Robert Bononno wrote:
> > densite lumineux = luminous density
> > intensite lumineuse = luminous intensity
> > onde lumineuse = light wave
> > rayon lumineux = light ray
> > unite d'intensite lumineuse = light unit
> > rendement lumineux = luminous efficiency
> > etc.
> > My question was really whether or not these different usages
> > (translations) reflect different underlying physical concepts...and if
> > English usage accounts for this difference.
> > Robert Bononno