infrared and ultraviolet: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
m (Text replace - "jbocre: ([a-z])" to "$1") |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
It's easy to talk about visible light, or about radio, or about the electromagnetic spectrum as a whole, but what about the other major regions of the spectrum? | |||
* | * infrared | ||
* [[ | ** A first try: le me'i xunre se dirce or, by extension, mecyxunseldi'e -- [[RobinLeePowell|RobinLeePowell]] | ||
* [[ | *** Um. I translate that as "less red radiation". Not "less-than-red radiation", which would require the ''me'i'' to describe a property of ''xunre'' somehow - a red light that diminishes in brightness would emit ''le me'i xunre se dirce''. | ||
* ultraviolet | |||
* x-rays | |||
** The name "x-ray" is purely conventional. I don't have any better idea than ''xy. zei gusni''. ''mi'e [[jezrax|jezrax]]'' | |||
(You really have to use ''boxna'' (pleeeeease no "red" or "violet" calques!): | |||
''gusni xe boxna barda (cmalu) se dukse fi lenu viska narkakne'' or just | |||
''gusxembonbra(cma)du'e'' for short... | |||
* Why is it a calque to say something involving "red" or "violet"? If I describe infrared as "beyond-red light" (bancu xunre gusni), isn't it correct? | |||
** I like ''bacyxungu'i'' and ''bacyblagu'i''. They're a little vague but seem clear enough for everyday use. Scientists will definitely prefer ''boxna'' when being technical. ''mi'e [[jezrax|jezrax]]'' | |||
* Incidentally, your tanru doesn't work (''gusni xe boxna barda dukse'' is a kind of ''dukse'' - not something excessive, but the excess itself) and if you can come up with a seljvajvo place structure for ''gusxembonbradu'e'', more power to you. --[[rab.spir|rab.spir]] | |||
...but wouldn't it be a good use for our MEX | |||
notation if we were to specify the actual range of wavelengths that define these | |||
terms? e.g. | |||
* near UV ''boxna fu su'evo decmiktre'' | |||
* infrared ''boxna fu su'ozepivo decmiktre'' (though i am used to using Angstroms, it seems silly to talk about 4000 or 7400 of a ten-billionth of a meter in Lojban) | |||
** So why do you talk about 7.4 of a ten-millionth of a meter rather than 740 billionths? I think using nm for wavelengths of light around the visible range is well established. (My real quibble is with the non-power-of-10^3 used here: 10^-7 seems like an illogical base when 10^-9 or 10^-6 will do -- and require only one prefix rather than two.) That would then become ''su'evonono navytre'' and ''su'ozevono navytre'', respectively. mi'e filip | |||
* Are you looking at the same ''[[gimste|gimste]]'' I am? Mine gives wavelength ''velbo'a'', frequency ''xelbo'a'', so you want ''fo'' not ''fu''. ''mi'e [[jezrax|jezrax]]'' | |||
Latest revision as of 16:16, 23 March 2014
It's easy to talk about visible light, or about radio, or about the electromagnetic spectrum as a whole, but what about the other major regions of the spectrum?
- infrared
- A first try: le me'i xunre se dirce or, by extension, mecyxunseldi'e -- RobinLeePowell
- Um. I translate that as "less red radiation". Not "less-than-red radiation", which would require the me'i to describe a property of xunre somehow - a red light that diminishes in brightness would emit le me'i xunre se dirce.
- ultraviolet
- x-rays
- The name "x-ray" is purely conventional. I don't have any better idea than xy. zei gusni. mi'e jezrax
(You really have to use boxna (pleeeeease no "red" or "violet" calques!):
gusni xe boxna barda (cmalu) se dukse fi lenu viska narkakne or just
gusxembonbra(cma)du'e for short...
- Why is it a calque to say something involving "red" or "violet"? If I describe infrared as "beyond-red light" (bancu xunre gusni), isn't it correct?
- I like bacyxungu'i and bacyblagu'i. They're a little vague but seem clear enough for everyday use. Scientists will definitely prefer boxna when being technical. mi'e jezrax
- Incidentally, your tanru doesn't work (gusni xe boxna barda dukse is a kind of dukse - not something excessive, but the excess itself) and if you can come up with a seljvajvo place structure for gusxembonbradu'e, more power to you. --rab.spir
...but wouldn't it be a good use for our MEX
notation if we were to specify the actual range of wavelengths that define these
terms? e.g.
- near UV boxna fu su'evo decmiktre
- infrared boxna fu su'ozepivo decmiktre (though i am used to using Angstroms, it seems silly to talk about 4000 or 7400 of a ten-billionth of a meter in Lojban)
- So why do you talk about 7.4 of a ten-millionth of a meter rather than 740 billionths? I think using nm for wavelengths of light around the visible range is well established. (My real quibble is with the non-power-of-10^3 used here: 10^-7 seems like an illogical base when 10^-9 or 10^-6 will do -- and require only one prefix rather than two.) That would then become su'evonono navytre and su'ozevono navytre, respectively. mi'e filip
- Are you looking at the same gimste I am? Mine gives wavelength velbo'a, frequency xelbo'a, so you want fo not fu. mi'e jezrax