Re: luminous vs. light as adjectives

[Robert Bononno <bononno -at- ACF2 -dot- NYU -dot- EDU>]

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
this question.

(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".

Robert Bononno
        bononnoAacf2.nyu.edu


> 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
> >
> >