more thoughts on language
Oct. 31st, 2006 12:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
erratio1. Today one of my coworkers used the most bizarre phrase I've heard in a while. She was asking me to do her section tomorrow and make it all look nice, since Wednesday is her day off. What she said was "could you make it all Mickey Mouse?" So.. short, animalistic and with a high-pitched voice? Possessed of its own fanclub? That would be one heck of a section at Coles..
2. From the book I'm reading right now, Darwin's Watch
Einstein invented general relativity in order to incorporate gravity into special relativity
Now my issue here is with the use of the word 'invented'. In my mind, the logic goes as follows: The laws of relativity etc describe the way the world works. Now, either the world does work in the way described, or it does not. If it does, then how can you say that you invented it? It's not so much inventing the law as discovering it. Inventing something implies creating something that was not there before. You can't invent gravity and you can't invent the way objects act as they approach the speed of light. Even saying that you can theoretically invent the equation to describe it seems ever so slightly off to me.
Mostly I think it's just a bad word choice on the authors' part, but one which was jarring enough to make me think "hold on a second..", and enough to make me more critical than usual of this particular pop science book.
2. From the book I'm reading right now, Darwin's Watch
Einstein invented general relativity in order to incorporate gravity into special relativity
Now my issue here is with the use of the word 'invented'. In my mind, the logic goes as follows: The laws of relativity etc describe the way the world works. Now, either the world does work in the way described, or it does not. If it does, then how can you say that you invented it? It's not so much inventing the law as discovering it. Inventing something implies creating something that was not there before. You can't invent gravity and you can't invent the way objects act as they approach the speed of light. Even saying that you can theoretically invent the equation to describe it seems ever so slightly off to me.
Mostly I think it's just a bad word choice on the authors' part, but one which was jarring enough to make me think "hold on a second..", and enough to make me more critical than usual of this particular pop science book.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-31 11:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-01 03:34 am (UTC)In that case, I wouldn't worry too much about it. I thought this was some pop. science book and that you were losing respect for the author. Are you sure that Pratchett didn't intend it as a joke?
no subject
Date: 2006-11-01 07:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-01 08:38 am (UTC)I have a book here on Chaos Theory by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen (The Collapse of Chaos) and they both write very well.