| |
Main
Date: 04 Dec 2006 13:33:03
From: pho3nix
Subject: the color of the universe is latte
|
http://fullygeek.com/2006/12/cosmic-latte-the-color-of-the-universe/
|
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 09:12:36
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: the color of the universe is latte
|
pho3nix wrote:
> http://fullygeek.com/2006/12/cosmic-latte-the-color-of-the-universe/
Interesting. No need to name the color after a beverage favored by
pretentious wimps, however, because the color already has a name: écru.
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 15:43:43
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: the color of the universe is latte
|
On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 09:12:36 -0500, Davoud <star@sky.net > wrote:
>Interesting. No need to name the color after a beverage favored by
>pretentious wimps, however, because the color already has a name: écru.
Perhaps in France. But in English, the color you are referring to is
called "ecru". But I like "latte" better; in the fashion that makes
English so great, new words are readily adopted to make things clearer.
And I'd wager that far more people grasp the color represented by
"latte" than by "ecru".
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 08:25:03
From: Shawn
Subject: Re: the color of the universe is latte
|
Davoud wrote:
> pho3nix wrote:
>
>> http://fullygeek.com/2006/12/cosmic-latte-the-color-of-the-universe/
>
> Interesting. No need to name the color after a beverage favored by
> pretentious wimps, however, because the color already has a name: écru.
Like that isn't a whimpy sounding name? At least latte doesn't sound
like the name of a flightless bird. ;-)
Shawn
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 17:53:18
From: zaph
Subject: Re: the color of the universe is latte
|
pho3nix wrote:
> http://fullygeek.com/2006/12/cosmic-latte-the-color-of-the-universe/
they forgot to take into account the dark matter in the universe.
the actual color would be mocha.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 02:19:29
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: the color of the universe is latte
|
On 4 Dec 2006 17:53:18 -0800, "zaph" <zaphbbrox@aol.com > wrote:
>they forgot to take into account the dark matter in the universe.
>the actual color would be mocha.
Dark matter doesn't interact with photons. So its color would be
"vodka".
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 05:42:53
From:
Subject: Re: the color of the universe is latte
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 09:12:36 -0500, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
>
> >Interesting. No need to name the color after a beverage favored by
> >pretentious wimps, however, because the color already has a name: =E9cru.
>
> Perhaps in France. But in English, the color you are referring to is
> called "ecru". But I like "latte" better; in the fashion that makes
> English so great, new words are readily adopted to make things clearer.
> And I'd wager that far more people grasp the color represented by
> "latte" than by "ecru".
Probably "brown" would be more intelligible to the average person.
According to Wikipedia, though, apparently it *is* possible to get more
specific. Beige.
Unfortunately, the average person appears to be out of date, and since
the 1930s, they've divided up the colors formerly known as beige into
two areas, one still called beige, the other called ecru.
I had never kept track of such things. Only very recently - thanks to a
humorous post about the animal-women of Orion - did I discover what
color "chartreuse" was, and before that, I found out that "purple"
really should refer to the bluish 'royal purple', common purple being
more properly called 'mauve'.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:21:04
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: the color of the universe is latte
|
Davoud:
> > >Interesting. No need to name the color after a beverage favored by
> > >pretentious wimps, however, because the color already has a name: écru.
Chris L Peterson:
> > Perhaps in France. But in English, the color you are referring to is
> > called "ecru".
Allow me my little affectation, please. That's the way I learned to
spell the word.
> > But I like "latte" better; in the fashion that makes
> > English so great, new words are readily adopted to make things clearer.
I certainly agree in principle. But inventing new words because one is
ignorant of the fact that a perfectly suitable word already exists is
not the way *I* like to see the language evolve. Next thing you know
the word "brown" will be forgotten and be replaced by "shit."
> > And I'd wager that far more people grasp the color represented by
> > "latte" than by "ecru".
I believe that the word écru is pretty widely known. But I won't
quibble. We have a phrase to describe people grasping "latte" and not
"écru." It is called "the dumbing of America."
And I stand by my assertion that "caffè e latte" /stile/ /Americano/ is
a drink for pretentious wimps.
jsavard:
> Probably "brown" would be more intelligible to the average person.
>
> According to Wikipedia, though, apparently it *is* possible to get more
> specific. Beige.
>
> Unfortunately, the average person appears to be out of date, and since
> the 1930s, they've divided up the colors formerly known as beige into
> two areas, one still called beige, the other called ecru.
Wikipedia is wrong. Écru is neither brown nor beige. Ecru is the color
of unbleached linen; paler than beige, not at all close to brown.
Finally, I have photographs to prove that the Universe consists of
more-or-less whitish dots against a background of the blackest black,
with an entire rainbow of other colors scattered about in fuzzy little
patches.
Davoud
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
|
