RE: Eats, Shoots & Leaves page 7

This is a discussion thread · 92 replies
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Aaron J. Dinkin:
[nq:1]Why not "addive/subtractive"? "Additive/subtractitive"?[/nq]
Because the suffix "-ive", like the suffix "-ion", is (generally) attached to the Latin so-called supine stem - in these cases, "addit-" and "subtract-". The asymmetry in this case is because, among English verbs that come from Latin, some are taken from the supine stem (like "subtract") and and some from the basic stem (like "add"). Sometimes the same Latin verb was borrowed both ways, like "deduce" and "deduct".

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Maria Conlon:
[nq:1]Word issue: Why not "addive/subtractive"? "Additive/subtractitive"? Or "additional/subtractional"? ("Additive" and "subtractrive" don't sound right to me as opposites, or even as a pairing. It's the suffixes that cause the disharmony.)[/nq]
Thanks to Evan and Aaron for the answers. I learn something new every day...
(Now, what was it that I learned last Monday?)
Maria Conlon
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Steve Hayes:
[nq:2]rewboss wrote in part: But I've always heard that the three primary colors are red, *yellow,* and blue. What happened?[/nq]
[nq:1]I'm sure we discussed this about a year ago. I remember being deeply shocked by this apparent change and asking ... colours. The majority included yellow rather than green which I found reassuring but we are all wrong, it would seem.[/nq]
This seems to deserve a thread on its own.
I'll repeat what i said in the other thread - it depends on whether you are talking about light or pigments.
The primary colours for pigments are red, yellow and blue.

You get your box of paintd and mix blue and yellow with a bit of medium/a (water, oil, pempera etc) and you get green.
But when you are dealing with light, as in photography, the primary colours are red, blue and green, with their complemntaries cyan, yellow and magenta.

Colour photographic film works by having different layers - one sensitive to red, one to blue and one to green.
If it is a negative film, red objects will appear as cyan, blue objects as yellow, and green ones as magenta. When it is printed as a positive, the colours come the right way round again. So in colour negatives, grass looks pink, and clear sky looks dark brown.
Old fashioned colour printing used colour separations, with three different negatives being made through red, blue and green filters (or cyan, yellow and magenta ones). A plate is then made from the negative, and printed with the same colour ink as the filter.
Most colour printing processes are four colour - cyan, yellow, magenta and black.

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Peter Moylan:
Evan Kirshenbaum infrared:
[nq:1]It should also be noted that the reason that this works is that there are three types of color receptor ... have different numbers of primary colors, and if we had receptors that had different responses, we'd have different primary colors.[/nq]
That's probably why cats don't understand TV. Everything is the wrong colour to them.
Oh, yes, and Little Green Men aren't really green. We can't see their true colour because we lack the fourth colour receptor. Purple people eaters, on the other hand, will eat practically anyone. With only one type of receptor in their one eye, they think all people are purple.

Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Peter Moylan:
Evan Kirshenbaum infrared:
[nq:1]It should also be noted that the reason that this works is that there are three types of color receptor ... have different numbers of primary colors, and if we had receptors that had different responses, we'd have different primary colors.[/nq]
That's probably why cats don't understand TV. Everything is the wrong colour to them.
Oh, yes, and Little Green Men aren't really green. We can't see their true colour because we lack the fourth colour receptor. Purple people eaters, on the other hand, will eat practically anyone. With only one type of receptor in their one eye, they think all people are purple.

Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Peter Moylan:
rewboss infrared:

For suitably defined values of "genuine", sure. The big question, though, is whether it was worth reading. Now that I'm using a very effective junk filter (bogofilter) a clear picture is emerging. About 95% of my mail is spam, and most of that contains HTML attachments or is purely in HTML. Of the remaining non-spam mail, almost all is in plain text. The ones with the HTML might not technically be spam, but they're almost all from people I'd rather not hear from.
The ones from our local administrative people are the worst. Mail messages embedded inside other mail messages (that's the only way they know how to forward mail). After digging down several levels, and skipping all the HTML that turns out to be the single word "Regards" embellished with style sheets and whatnot, I finally get down to the embedded MS-word document - or, sometimes these days, the embedded Powerpoint presentation - that contains half a dozen lines of plain text. The net cost is several minutes of my time and a megabyte of hard disk to hold the six-line message. I'm seriously thinking of retraining the junk filter to send all admin memos straight to the bit bucket.

Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Peter Moylan:
R H Draney infrared:
[nq:1]Stewart Gordon filted:[/nq]
[nq:2]And grey - it's light black. So can the concepts of "light" and "dark" - they're whitish and blackish.[/nq]
[nq:1]ObPondialDifference: gray is a color, grey is a colour..[/nq]
Not at all; they're both shades. (My teachers were most insistent that black and white are not colours.) A shade is what a colo(u)r becomes after it dyes and enters the undercoat.

Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
R J Valentine:
}>
}> Word issue:
}>
}> Why not "addive/subtractive"? "Additive/subtractitive"? Or }> "additional/subtractional"?
}>
}> ("Additive" and "subtractrive" don't sound right to me as opposites, }> or even as a pairing. It's the suffixes that cause the disharmony.) }
} Thanks to Evan and Aaron for the answers. I learn something new every } day...
}
} (Now, what was it that I learned last Monday?)
"Subtrahend".

R. J. Valentine
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Peter Moylan:
R H Draney infrared:
[nq:1]About six months ago, with the help of someone bearing XX chromosomes, I sewed a button in the cuff of ... I can figure out what I can or cannot wear them with and avoid being laughed at by small children.[/nq]
Small female children, I presume. But what a brilliant idea. Those of us who are puce-challenged would finally have a way out of those endless exchanges:
"You're not going out dressed like that, are you?" "I suppose not. Which part isn't right?"
"Oh, come on, isn't it obvious?"
"The socks. It must be the socks. Would black socks be OK?" "It's nothing to do with the socks. Just look at yourself in the mirror."
(Looks in mirror.) "Oh. You mean I should comb my hair again?" "Stop pretending to be stupid. You can SEE what is wrong." "No, I can't. Please tell me. Is it the shirt?"
And so on. It's even more frustrating than that "What do you think about the change?" torture. ("Well, I like your new skirt." "I've had this skirt for ten years." etc.)

Let's see. If I sew a grey button into my greyish-brown trousers, and a brown button into my brownish-grey trousers, and a blue one into the it's-really-green-but-she-insists-it's-blue ... aargh!, this is going to drive me crazy.

Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.
Show more
Live chat
Registered users can join here