View Single Post
  #16  
Old October 2nd 05, 08:43 PM
Nostrobino
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Floyd Davidson" wrote in message
...
"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
anyone
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.


That's not evolution. That's a misunderstanding which through repetition
(mostly thanks to Usenet) has unfortunately become fairly common.

There have been many other terms which through misunderstanding and
repetition became frequently misused. In fact, several *lists* of misused
words have been compiled over the years.



Common use makes it "correct", and indicates the language has
evolved.


No. The popularity of some misusage does not automatically make it correct,
as you seem to believe. Look in any authoritative dictionary that has usage
notes, and you will find misusages that have enjoyed great popularity for
many, many years and are just still as wrong as they ever were.

N.