View Single Post
Old October 2nd 05, 07:59 PM
Floyd Davidson
external usenet poster
Posts: n/a

"Nostrobino" wrote:
"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
"Nostrobino" wrote:
In this case "prime" is clearly used to ditinguish the main lens
from the supplementary lens.

Thanks to both of you. These tend to support my recollection that this
misuse of "prime" first appeared c. 1990, and also that the term was still
in correct use at the same time. I would be very interested to see if
can produce a substantially earlier example of "prime" being used to mean
fixed focal length.

What difference does that make? As long as you want to claim it
means "the term was still in correct use", you are simply wrong
no matter what.

The "correct" use has evolved.

No, it has not. As shown repeatedly, it is still in current use and means
the same thing it always meant.

You continue to make logically invalid statements that are
patently absurd.

There is no *one single meaning* for the word "prime". The fact
that there are half a dozen or more previously used and still
commonly used meanings does not even begin to negate the simple
*fact* that you continue to try denying: it has evolved a *new*
meaning, which is now in relatively common use.

Common use makes it "correct", and indicates the language has
evolved. The opposite of that is *your* use of unique definitions
for "adaption" and "evolution", which are incorrect simply because
nobody other than you understands them to have the meanings you
have indicated (in a previous article to which I have just posted
a response).

Nor is there any obvious way that "fixed focal length" could evolve into
"prime." You might as well expect a horse to evolve into a cabbage.

Look, it *exists*, so you can't say that it is impossible. It's
there, and being used. Take you ear plugs out, throw away the
blinders, and get your hands away from your eyes. You are *not*
changing reality by refused to admit it exists.

On the other hand, it you rid yourself of this insistance that
whatever the use was at some specific point in time is "correct"
as opposed to all evolution that happened at a later date being
"incorrect", then yes it is interesting to catalog the
evolutionary process to see when it changed and to compare that
to the external factors that guided that evolutionary process

Go ahead, outline "that evolutionary process" for me. I'd sure like to see
how you get "fixed focal length" to evolve into "prime." What might the
intermediate steps look like, I wonder?

I could care less whether you wonder about it or not. And I'm not
going to catalog it for you. The *fact* that it exists is undeniable,
and therefore it *did* evolve.

Even if you *are* blind.

FloydL. Davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)