Lexicologists' mistake? - the ratio of reflected to incident light?

Forums: English, Esl, Grammar
Email this Topic • Print this Page

See the definition:
albedo /æl'bi:dəu/
n.
the ratio of reflected to incident light.

I think it should be:

the ratio of reflecting to incident light.

What is your opinion?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 6 • Views: 939 • Replies: 15

[+3] - timur - 04/03/2014First, you presupposition about about someone's courage or lack thereof in the matters at hand is a pointless exercise. People tend to answer your questions less and less because they feel that...
[+3] - contrex - 04/04/2014[quote="oristarA"] Just tell me plainly: Is the definition grammatically correct? [/quote] It's fine. Albedo is the ratio of reflected light to incident light. One can omit the...

View best answer, chosen by oristarA

@oristarA,

What? No one's interested?

0 Replies

I suspect that even bold JTT has been scared away by this question.
He probably does not have the courage to evaluate a lexicologist's idea.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

First, you presupposition about about someone's courage or lack thereof in the matters at hand is a pointless exercise.
People tend to answer your questions less and less because they feel that your interest is to make a point and not to acquire a genuine knowledge.

Second, you can see the inanity of your pretense if you just replace your initial terms for synonyms:

(Albedo is the ratio of reflected light over incident light.)

Albedo is the ratio of released light over the received light.

How do you feel reading:

Albedo is the ratio of releasing light over received light.

Dumb, hum?

0 Replies

The best source of information on this topic may be "The Dictionary of Visual Science".

The definition :" the ratio of reflected to incident light", is in my opionion the best one.

1 Reply

@Miller,

Miller wrote:

The best source of information on this topic may be "The Dictionary of Visual Science".

The definition :" the ratio of reflected to incident light", is in my opionion the best one.

That is, the phrase "reflected to" serves as an adjective here?

2 Replies

@oristarA,

Quote:

oristarA,

What? No one's interested?

You could have saved a lot of time and heartache if you had invoked:

Quote:

report Tue 18 Mar, 2014 05:28 am

@oristarA,

Well, this thread is abandoned.
Thanks for paying attention

And the cheeks of those that couldn't even bother responding to your earnest plea smack of naughtiness.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

Miller wrote:
The best source of information on this topic may be "The Dictionary of Visual Science".
The definition :" the ratio of reflected to incident light", is in my opionion the best one.

That is, the phrase "reflected to" serves as an adjective here?

I don't think that's supposed to be a phrase.

A ratio is sort of a comparison between two values. For instance: the ratio of "x" to "y"

That would show how the value of "x" compares to the value of "y".

The definition above is comparing "the amount of reflected light" to "the amount of incident light".

0 Replies

@oristarA,

Try using relative clauses to say the same thing.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Try using relative clauses to say the same thing.

You seem to have beaten around the bush, JTT.
Just tell me plainly: Is the definition grammatically correct?

2 Replies

@oristarA,

Quote:

You seem to have beaten around the bush, JTT.

That is an unnatural use of that idiom, Ori.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Quote:

I think it should be

the ratio of reflecting to incident light.

It's not important what you think, Ori. What is important is why you think that.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

Just tell me plainly: Is the definition grammatically correct?

It's fine. Albedo is the ratio of reflected light to incident light. One can omit the first or second instance of 'light', in order to avoid repetition.

Mix hot water and cold water.
Mix hot water and cold.
Mix hot and cold water.

1 Reply

@contrex,

Contrex the English "teacher" doesn't want to get into the difficulties of why either, Ori. After all, he only has a BLit.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
You seem to have beaten around the bush, JTT.

That is an unnatural use of that idiom, Ori.

But it looks that I've used it correctly according to the definition:
beat around the bush
v.
be deliberately ambiguous or unclear in order to mislead or withhold information

1 Reply

@oristarA,

It's your syntax, Ori.

I'm not "be[ing] deliberately ambiguous or unclear in order to mislead or withhold information". It doesn't do you much good to simply hear it's alright. There's something lacking in your knowledge. That is what is important.

Again, write it using relative clauses.

0 Replies

Lexicologists' mistake? - the ratio of reflected to incident light?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know