Eats, Shoots & Leaves
DOYLE60
Matt
Matti Lamprhey
> Does Lynne Truss understand what an attributive noun is?
Ah -- a mystery question.
Matti
rewboss
news:2ic5coF...@uni-berlin.de...
> "DOYLE60" <doy...@aol.com> wrote...
> > Does Lynne Truss understand what an attributive noun is?
>
> Ah -- a mystery question.
Indeed. Incidentally, shouldn't that be "attribution noun"? ;-)
Robert Lieblich
Or perhaps an attributive nominative?
Steve Hayes
>Does Lynne Truss understand what an attributive noun is?
Who or what is Lynne Truss?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> DOYLE60 wrote:
> > Does Lynne Truss understand what an attributive noun is?
> Who or what is Lynne Truss?
A type of female sardine-buyer discussed in AUE at great length.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
AUEer Emeritus & Eremitus
Dr Robin Bignall
>Does Lynne Truss understand what an attributive noun is?
>
Dunno, but she reflects on the success of her book in today's Times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-1134613,00.html
"My head is in a jar
STILL, at least such random annoyances reassure me that the world I live in
is real. Because I have a confession. You know those solipsistic fantasies
you have at the age of 12 that you are the only real person and everyone
else is a sort of dream? Well, imagine for a moment what it’s like to be
the author of Eats, Shoots & Leaves.
Yes, all right: as I write this, my feet are indeed soaking in a bowl of
finest asses’ milk, delivered daily from Harrods. Yes, I line the cat-box
with £10 notes. But it’s the can-you-believe-it aspect that I want you to
consider. It’s all very well for a little book on punctuation to sell in
unexpected numbers; but when it goes on and on, and on and on — and then it
reaches No 1 on The New York Times bestseller list — the conclusion is
unavoidable. None of this is really happening. I am a head in a jar
somewhere, with electrodes, and someone who knows pitifully little about
publishing is transmitting this outlandish fantasy directly to my brain.
It sounds mad? It sounds, in fact, rather like the plot of Dennis Potter’s
posthumous TV series Cold Lazarus? Yet I genuinely have moments when
believe it to be true. Yes: head in a jar. It’s gruesome, it’s mad, but
it’s the only explanation that makes sense.
Do I want to it to stop, though? That’s the tough part. This asses’ milk is
working wonders with the bunions."
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England
Mike Lyle
> On 04 Jun 2004 19:44:28 GMT, doy...@aol.com (DOYLE60) wrote:
>
> >Does Lynne Truss understand what an attributive noun is?
> >
> Dunno, but she reflects on the success of her book in today's Times.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,175-1134613,00.html
> Do I want to it to stop, though? That?s the tough part. This asses? milk is
> working wonders with the bunions."
You just can't grudge it to a fellow-scribbler who hits the G-spot, can you?
Mike.
Dr Robin Bignall
I certainly wouldn't, but I noticed a few sneers from people when J K
Rowling's success was discussed here a few months ago.
Mike Lyle
Some of them possibly from the nobly ungrudging me!
Mike.
sage
"DOYLE60" <doy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040604154428...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> Does Lynne Truss understand what an attributive noun is?
>
> Matt
OK. Help. I've yet to see a copy of the Truss book. Just how is the title
presented?
Like this: "Eats, Shoots, & Leaves"?
Or like this: "Eats, Shoots & Leaves"?
I've seen it both ways, both here and in articles talking about it.
It's dwiving me cwazy.
Cheers, Sage
Evan Kirshenbaum
> OK. Help. I've yet to see a copy of the Truss book. Just how is the title
> presented?
> Like this: "Eats, Shoots, & Leaves"?
> Or like this: "Eats, Shoots & Leaves"?
>
> I've seen it both ways, both here and in articles talking about it.
>
> It's dwiving me cwazy.
The cover on Amazon shows _Eats, Shoots & Leaves_. With a panda
whiting out the comma. (Or "pinking out" on the British edition.
It's red text on a white background in the US and black text on a
pinkish background in the UK.)
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |A handgun is like a Lawyer. You
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |don't want it lying around where
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the children might be exposed to
|it, but when you need one, you need
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |it RIGHT NOW, and nothing else will
(650)857-7572 |do.
| Bill McNutt
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Matti Lamprhey
> "sage" <sa...@allstream.net> writes:
>
> > OK. Help. I've yet to see a copy of the Truss book. Just how is the
> > title presented?
> > Like this: "Eats, Shoots, & Leaves"?
> > Or like this: "Eats, Shoots & Leaves"?
> >
> > I've seen it both ways, both here and in articles talking about it.
> >
> > It's dwiving me cwazy.
>
> The cover on Amazon shows _Eats, Shoots & Leaves_. With a panda
> whiting out the comma. (Or "pinking out" on the British edition.
> It's red text on a white background in the US and black text on a
> pinkish background in the UK.)
On the wrapper of my UK edition the text is indeed black and the panda's
brush is loaded with scarlet paint, but the background is a very pale
yellow.
Warning: never trust a man describing colours.
Matti
Stewart Gordon
> "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote in message
> news:2iinprF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
>>Warning: never trust a man describing colours.
>>
>
>
> What's the problems? There are only 11 colours:
>
> Black, white, grey, brown, red, pink, blue, yellow, orange, purple and
> green.
In fact, there's a whole three-dimensional continuum of colours.
> If you really must, you can have "light" and "dark" versions of all of them
> except black and white
And you can mix them together in arbitrary proportions.
> (come to think of it, pink can go - it's light red).
And grey - it's light black. So can the concepts of "light" and "dark"
- they're whitish and blackish.
So can orange - it's yellowish red. And brown - it's reddish yellowish
blue. And purple - it's bluish red. And yellow - it's light reddish green.
> All these silly ones (cerise, taupe, mauve, puce, etc.) are irrelevant
> variations.
One source uses 12 evenly-spaced, named hues: red, orange, yellow,
spring, green, teal, cyan, azure, blue, violet, magenta, pink. The
variations are described in terms of lightness and saturation. Other
variations are things like "orange-orange-yellow" and stuff.
Stewart.
--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Laura F Spira
But Evan was looking at the Amazon website where the colour of the UK
edition is less distinctly yellow - certainly less yellow than the real
life colour of the book jacket - although pinkish is perhaps a bit of a
stretch.
What I find more interesting is that the US cover has a second panda
walking away holding a gun - presumably to enable our Leftpondian
friends to get the joke more easily?
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Thomas Matthews
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Curley Q. wrote:
>
>>Dave Vandervies wrote:
>>
>>>In English, it is conventional to end most (not all, but most) statements
>>>with a period ('.', which if I'm not mistaken is referred to in British
>>>as a full stop).
>>
>>Commas should delimit the dependant clause: 'if I'm not
>>mistaken.' You'd better read the book.
>
>
> Commas generally indicate pauses in speech.
[snip]
As my elementary school teacher stated, pauses in speech differ
from when climb up the four flights of stairs and when you are
sitting on the couch and resting. One would require many commas
after climbing a bunch of stairs. Less commas for the couch
potatoes.
--
Thomas Matthews
C++ newsgroup welcome message:
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt
C++ Faq: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite
C Faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/c-faq/top.html
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++ faq:
http://www.raos.demon.uk/acllc-c++/faq.html
Other sites:
http://www.josuttis.com -- C++ STL Library book
rewboss
news:ca1i3a$6jq$1...@sun-cc204.lut.ac.uk...
> Mike Mooney wrote:
>
> > "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote in message
> > news:2iinprF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >
> >>Warning: never trust a man describing colours.
> >>
> >
> >
> > What's the problems? There are only 11 colours:
> >
> > Black, white, grey, brown, red, pink, blue, yellow, orange, purple and
> > green.
>
> In fact, there's a whole three-dimensional continuum of colours.
>
> > If you really must, you can have "light" and "dark" versions of all of
them
> > except black and white
>
> And you can mix them together in arbitrary proportions.
>
> > (come to think of it, pink can go - it's light red).
>
> And grey - it's light black. So can the concepts of "light" and "dark"
> - they're whitish and blackish.
>
> So can orange - it's yellowish red. And brown - it's reddish yellowish
> blue. And purple - it's bluish red. And yellow - it's light reddish
green.
>
> > All these silly ones (cerise, taupe, mauve, puce, etc.) are irrelevant
> > variations.
>
> One source uses 12 evenly-spaced, named hues: red, orange, yellow,
> spring, green, teal, cyan, azure, blue, violet, magenta, pink. The
> variations are described in terms of lightness and saturation. Other
> variations are things like "orange-orange-yellow" and stuff.
Theoretically, there is an infinite number of colours, but because of the
way our eyes work we can think of them as mixtures of red, green and blue in
varying proportions. When all three colours are present at the same
brightness, you get a shade of grey; an absence of all three colours is
black, while all three at full strength is white. Red and green at full
strength makes yellow; make the green half as strong as the red and you get
a shade of orange. Red, green and blue are the primary colours: the
secondary colours are what you get when you mix two primary colours in equal
proportions.
When using inks, paints and other pigments, though, different laws are at
work. With light, adding to a colour increases brightness, but with pigment
it's the other way around. For pigments, the primary colours are cyan,
magenta and yellow -- which just happen to be the complementary colours of
red, green and blue respectively. To these three, printers add black because
although in theory all three primary colours mixed together should produce
black, in practice pigments are impure and make a dirty dark grey. They
label black "K", because "B" stands for blue. This explains why webmasters
use the RGB colour model (because they are working in the medium of light --
the computer monitor) while printers use the CMYK model.
Anyway, as I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself, there are
actually only three colours: red, green and blue. Everything else is a
mixture of these three.
Maria Conlon
> What I find more interesting is that the US cover has a second panda
> walking away holding a gun - presumably to enable our Leftpondian
> friends to get the joke more easily?
I'm surprised, Laura. Until now, I don't think anyone has ever suggested
that a Leftpondian would need an illustration to connect "shoot" with
"gun."
Incidentally, is there any mention of "roots" in the book?
Maria Conlon
Leftpondian
sage
"sage" <sa...@allstream.net> wrote in message
news:1iQwc.7291$Xy3....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
Thanks for the colour schema. Now, what about that bloody comma?
Cheers, Sage
>
>
>
Laura F Spira
> Laura F Spira wrote:
>
>
>>What I find more interesting is that the US cover has a second panda
>>walking away holding a gun - presumably to enable our Leftpondian
>>friends to get the joke more easily?
>
>
> I'm surprised, Laura. Until now, I don't think anyone has ever suggested
> that a Leftpondian would need an illustration to connect "shoot" with
> "gun."
What's your theory about the extra panda, then?
>
> Incidentally, is there any mention of "roots" in the book?
I wish I knew. My copy was given to me by a dear friend (to whom,
incidentally, I gave the same gift, at the same time) but I have not yet
had a chance to read it properly, as other members of my family pounced
on it and took it away. They have favoured me with occasional readings
from it - the bits they found especially irritating/entertaining - but
it has yet to reappear on my bookshelf.
Has "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time" by Mark Haddon
been published in the US yet? I'd be interested to know what any aue
readers think of it.
R H Draney
>
>Mike Mooney wrote:
>
>And grey - it's light black. So can the concepts of "light" and "dark"
>- they're whitish and blackish.
ObPondialDifference: gray is a color, grey is a colour....
>So can orange - it's yellowish red. And brown - it's reddish yellowish
>blue. And purple - it's bluish red. And yellow - it's light reddish green.
>
>> All these silly ones (cerise, taupe, mauve, puce, etc.) are irrelevant
>> variations.
>
>One source uses 12 evenly-spaced, named hues: red, orange, yellow,
>spring, green, teal, cyan, azure, blue, violet, magenta, pink. The
>variations are described in terms of lightness and saturation. Other
>variations are things like "orange-orange-yellow" and stuff.
I don't believe in purple...if it's qualitatively different from blue, an awful
lot of things called green need to have names of their own as well....
Further thread drift: I am told that one of the giveaway strings for
identifying an e-mail as spam is "#ff0000"...this is supposed to be a better
predictor of spamitude than the more obvious "viagra", "lottery" or
"Nigeria"...it's the HTML code for the color red....r
Maria Conlon
> Maria Conlon wrote:
>> Laura F Spira wrote:
>>
>>> What I find more interesting is that the US cover has a second panda
>>> walking away holding a gun - presumably to enable our Leftpondian
>>> friends to get the joke more easily?
>>
>> I'm surprised, Laura. Until now, I don't think anyone has ever
>> suggested that a Leftpondian would need an illustration to connect
>> "shoot" with "gun."
>
> What's your theory about the extra panda, then?
An artist with nothing much else to do.
Note: After I sent the above-quoted post, and went on to another thread,
I sat here wondering what kind of animal was involved in Eats, etc. I
couldn't think of "panda." What that says, I don't know.
>>
>> Incidentally, is there any mention of "roots" in the book?
>
> I wish I knew. My copy was given to me by a dear friend (to whom,
> incidentally, I gave the same gift, at the same time) but I have not
> yet had a chance to read it properly, as other members of my family
> pounced on it and took it away. They have favoured me with occasional
> readings from it - the bits they found especially
> irritating/entertaining - but it has yet to reappear on my bookshelf.
You may have to buy another copy. The book will be a dead issue before
too long -- "yesterday's news."
>
> Has "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time" by Mark Haddon
> been published in the US yet? I'd be interested to know what any aue
> readers think of it.
It's available on Amazon, new and used. Four-and-a-half stars out of
five. I haven't read it, though.
Comments? Anyone?
Maria Conlon
Maria Conlon
[...]
> Anyway, as I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself, there
> are actually only three colours: red, green and blue. Everything else
> is a mixture of these three.
But I've always heard that the three primary colors are red, *yellow,*
and blue. What happened?
Maria Conlon
When it's you against the world, back the world. (Zappa)
Jacqui
> rewboss wrote in part:
> [...]
>> Anyway, as I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself,
>> there are actually only three colours: red, green and blue.
>> Everything else is a mixture of these three.
>
> But I've always heard that the three primary colors are red,
> *yellow,* and blue. What happened?
TV took over the world.
Jac
david56
> rewboss wrote in part:
> [...]
> > Anyway, as I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself, there
> > are actually only three colours: red, green and blue. Everything else
> > is a mixture of these three.
>
> But I've always heard that the three primary colors are red, *yellow,*
> and blue. What happened?
There are two sets of primary colours - pigment and light. The light
colours are Red Green and Blue (which are the colours of the pixels
on your monitor and TV), and the pigment colours are Cyan, Magenta
and Yellow (which are the colours of the inks in your printer).
Light colours combine by addition; in light, R + G + B = White.
Pigment colours combine by subtracting non-reflective colours, so in
pigment, C + M + Y = Black.
The secondary colours of Light are CMY, the secondary colours of
pigment are RGB.
It is consequently exceedingly difficult to match printed colours to
screen colours.
There must be acres of explanation online. Here's a simple one to
start with:
http://www.wiu.edu/art/courses/design/color.htm
--
David
=====
david56
> Stewart Gordon filted:
> >
> >Mike Mooney wrote:
> >
> >And grey - it's light black. So can the concepts of "light" and "dark"
> >- they're whitish and blackish.
>
> ObPondialDifference: gray is a color, grey is a colour....
>
> >So can orange - it's yellowish red. And brown - it's reddish yellowish
> >blue. And purple - it's bluish red. And yellow - it's light reddish green.
> >
> >> All these silly ones (cerise, taupe, mauve, puce, etc.) are irrelevant
> >> variations.
> >
> >One source uses 12 evenly-spaced, named hues: red, orange, yellow,
> >spring, green, teal, cyan, azure, blue, violet, magenta, pink. The
> >variations are described in terms of lightness and saturation. Other
> >variations are things like "orange-orange-yellow" and stuff.
>
> I don't believe in purple...if it's qualitatively different from blue, an awful
> lot of things called green need to have names of their own as well....
I have a shirt whose colour I cannot name. This sometimes makes me
feel a little ill ...
> Further thread drift: I am told that one of the giveaway strings for
> identifying an e-mail as spam is "#ff0000"...this is supposed to be a better
> predictor of spamitude than the more obvious "viagra", "lottery" or
> "Nigeria"...it's the HTML code for the color red....r
That's an easy one. If it's got html code, reject it.
--
David
=====
david56
> Laura F Spira wrote:
>
> > Has "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time" by Mark Haddon
> > been published in the US yet? I'd be interested to know what any aue
> > readers think of it.
Has anybody analysed the differences between the Children's and
Adult's versions?
> It's available on Amazon, new and used. Four-and-a-half stars out of
> five. I haven't read it, though.
>
> Comments? Anyone?
It's damned near too close to home. I've also just read "The Speed
of Dark", and I'm now dangerously close to self-diagnosis as
borderline-autistic, especially following that test we all did to
work out what sort of brains we have.
I've read Baron-Cohen's book (no, not the Ali G one, his uncle),
which explains the personality test. Explains a lot, that does.
--
David
=====
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>"Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote in message
>news:2iinprF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
>>
>> Warning: never trust a man describing colours.
>>
>
>What's the problems? There are only 11 colours:
>
>Black, white, grey, brown, red, pink, blue, yellow, orange, purple and
>green.
>
>If you really must, you can have "light" and "dark" versions of all of them
>except black and white (come to think of it, pink can go - it's light red).
>All these silly ones (cerise, taupe, mauve, puce, etc.) are irrelevant
>variations.
What about the complementaries of red and green - cyan and magenta?
Evan Kirshenbaum
> I don't believe in purple...if it's qualitatively different from
> blue, an awful lot of things called green need to have names of
> their own as well....
My basic test is to look at a bookcase full of paperbacks. Scan down
the spines and add to the list the name of any color you wouldn't feel
comfortable calling any of the names already on the list and which
isn't "sort of two of them". When you add it, go back to the
exemplars of the colors already there and see if you would feel
comfortable replacing any of the old terms by the new one or if
there's a term that you'd feel comfortable replacing both of them
with.
I get the same eleven that pretty much all other English speakers
get.
It doesn't me take too long find something that I call "purple" and
would be unhappy calling any of the other basic colors. The same
doesn't appear to be true of green. Certainly there are colors for
which it's hard to decide between two names, but there are also
central "purples" as well.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |He who will not reason, is a bigot;
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |he who cannot is a fool; and he who
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |dares not is a slave.
| Sir William Drummond
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Maria Conlon typed thus:
>
>> rewboss wrote in part:
>> [...]
>> > Anyway, as I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself, there
>> > are actually only three colours: red, green and blue. Everything else
>> > is a mixture of these three.
>>
>> But I've always heard that the three primary colors are red, *yellow,*
>> and blue. What happened?
>
> There are two sets of primary colours - pigment and light. The light
> colours are Red Green and Blue (which are the colours of the pixels
> on your monitor and TV), and the pigment colours are Cyan, Magenta
> and Yellow (which are the colours of the inks in your printer).
>
> Light colours combine by addition; in light, R + G + B = White.
> Pigment colours combine by subtracting non-reflective colours, so in
> pigment, C + M + Y = Black.
It should also be noted that the reason that this works is that there
are three types of color receptor in the eye (for most people, at
least), and that these receptors react most strongly to light in,
roughly, the red, green, and blue regions of the spectrum. If we had
different numbers of receptors, we'd have different numbers of primary
colors, and if we had receptors that had different responses, we'd
have different primary colors.
The colors you see reflect the relative response of the three
receptors to the various wavelengths, which is why you can approximate
any visible color by mixing three primary (additive or subtractive)
colors. This doesn't however, mean that you'll get a color that's
optically identical to something found in the world, just that it will
be perceived (by most) as "the same".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Now and then an innocent man is sent
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to the legislature.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Kim Hubbard
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:26:10 +0100, "Mike Mooney" <m.j.m...@bradford.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>"Matti Lamprhey" <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote in message
>>news:2iinprF...@uni-berlin.de...
>>
>>>
>>> Warning: never trust a man describing colours.
>>>
>>
>>What's the problems? There are only 11 colours:
In English. Different languages carve up the space differently.
>>Black, white, grey, brown, red, pink, blue, yellow, orange, purple and
>>green.
>>
>>If you really must, you can have "light" and "dark" versions of all
>>of them except black and white (come to think of it, pink can go -
>>it's light red).
There are definitely pinks that I'd be uncomfortable calling red.
(Not even counting the pinks that are on the boundary with purple.)
>>All these silly ones (cerise, taupe, mauve, puce, etc.) are irrelevant
>>variations.
>
> What about the complementaries of red and green - cyan and magenta?
Most English speakers are happy calling those "light blue" and "a
purplish pink" (or pinkish purple). We can distinguish lots more than
eleven colors, but those eleven seem to be primary in English.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |English grammar is not taught in
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |primary or secondary schools in the
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |United States. Sometimes some
|mythology is taught under that
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |rubric, but luckily it's usually
(650)857-7572 |ignored, except by the credulous.
| John Lawler
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Mike Page
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>Maria Conlon wrote:
>> Laura F Spira wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What I find more interesting is that the US cover has a second panda
>>>walking away holding a gun - presumably to enable our Leftpondian
>>>friends to get the joke more easily?
>>
>>
>> I'm surprised, Laura. Until now, I don't think anyone has ever suggested
>> that a Leftpondian would need an illustration to connect "shoot" with
>> "gun."
>
>What's your theory about the extra panda, then?
>
>>
>> Incidentally, is there any mention of "roots" in the book?
>
>I wish I knew. My copy was given to me by a dear friend (to whom,
>incidentally, I gave the same gift, at the same time) but I have not yet
>had a chance to read it properly, as other members of my family pounced
>on it and took it away. They have favoured me with occasional readings
>from it - the bits they found especially irritating/entertaining - but
>it has yet to reappear on my bookshelf.
By coincidence, an esteemed and strangely comfortable friend gave
me a copy of what appears to be the UK edition that has no less
than three pandas: one on the (cream) front cover painting out a
black comma with red paint, one on the back cover walking off
stage left with a gun, and a small one up a bamboo stick on the
spine painting out a red comma with what appears to be red paint.
Or perhaps the panda on the spine is the other pandas' straight,
er, panda and has to paint the commas in in the first place, to
make the joke work.
>
>Has "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time" by Mark Haddon
>been published in the US yet? I'd be interested to know what any aue
>readers think of it.
Me too. All those that aren't too busy working out the cubes of
all the numbers up to a hundred in their heads, that is.
Mike Page
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney <dado...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> I don't believe in purple...if it's qualitatively different from
>> blue, an awful lot of things called green need to have names of
>> their own as well....
>
>My basic test is to look at a bookcase full of paperbacks. Scan down
>the spines and add to the list the name of any color you wouldn't feel
>comfortable calling any of the names already on the list and which
>isn't "sort of two of them". When you add it, go back to the
>exemplars of the colors already there and see if you would feel
>comfortable replacing any of the old terms by the new one or if
>there's a term that you'd feel comfortable replacing both of them
>with.
>
>I get the same eleven that pretty much all other English speakers
>get.
>
>It doesn't me take too long find something that I call "purple" and
>would be unhappy calling any of the other basic colors. The same
>doesn't appear to be true of green. Certainly there are colors for
>which it's hard to decide between two names, but there are also
>central "purples" as well.
There are soi-disant greens I have no qualms about calling "brown"...reds and
purples too...other greens might as well be yellow, blue or gray as far as I'm
concerned...green covers too much territory to have a single color name....
About six months ago, with the help of someone bearing XX chromosomes, I sewed a
button in the cuff of every pair of slacks I own so I can figure out what I can
or cannot wear them with and avoid being laughed at by small children...I needed
five colors: black, blue, red, green and yellow...I hang those slacks and all my
dress shirts as well on plastic hangers covering the same set of colors (plus
white for a couple of the shirts; I have no white slacks)...for purposes of
sorting and matching, "red" and "purple" are the same color...the same is true
of "brown" and "yellow", and of "gray" and "black"....
So in the only context that matters in my daily life, there are six
colors...QED....r
rewboss
news:2ijigbF...@uni-berlin.de...
> rewboss wrote in part:
> [...]
> > Anyway, as I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself, there
> > are actually only three colours: red, green and blue. Everything else
> > is a mixture of these three.
>
> But I've always heard that the three primary colors are red, *yellow,*
> and blue. What happened?
That's a simplification for the benefit of schoolchildren. You were taught
about primary colours for pigments, which are actually cyan, magenta and
yellow. But cyan looks like sky-blue, and magenta is a sort of purplish red,
so your teachers called them "blue" and "red" to avoid confusing you too
much.
rewboss
news:pt8bci...@hpl.hp.com...
There are, of course, other models available which ought, in theory, to get
closer to reality. HSB stands for Hue, Saturation and Brilliance, where
"hue" is the colour on a continuous scale from red to violet, and saturation
how pure the colour is -- zero saturation is grey, the shade of which
depends entirely on the brilliance. Lab stands for Luminence, a-channel and
b-channel, but don't ask me what the heck that's supposed to mean.
The problem is that sooner or later you're going to have to reproduce these
colours either on a TV screen or computer model using the RGB model, or in
print using the CMYK model.
rewboss
news:MPG.1b2eb1879...@news.individual.net...
I get lots of genuine e-mail in HTML format.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> The colors you see reflect the relative response of the three
>> receptors to the various wavelengths, which is why you can approximate
>> any visible color by mixing three primary (additive or subtractive)
>> colors. This doesn't however, mean that you'll get a color that's
>> optically identical to something found in the world, just that it will
>> be perceived (by most) as "the same".
>
> There are, of course, other models available which ought, in theory,
> to get closer to reality.
I'm not sure what "closer to reality" means here. I'm pretty sure
that all of these models are a matrix multiply away from one another.
Also, as you note,
> The problem is that sooner or later you're going to have to
> reproduce these colours either on a TV screen or computer model
> using the RGB model, or in print using the CMYK model.
so using anything other than RGB (asuming projection) is going be an
approximation that can only lose fidelity.
> HSB stands for Hue, Saturation and Brilliance,
"Brightness", in my experience. Foley and Van Dam[1] call it "HSV"
for Hue, Saturation, and Value. Ah, I see that this one isn't simply
a matrix transform away from RGB, although it's still deterministic
and computable in constant time. And invertable.
They also talk about "HLS", which is Hue, Lightness, and Saturation;
being essentially "a deformation of HSV, in which white is 'pulled'
upwards to form the upper hexcone from the V=1 plane." (p. 617)
> where "hue" is the colour on a continuous scale from red to violet,
> and saturation how pure the colour is -- zero saturation is grey,
> the shade of which depends entirely on the brilliance. Lab stands
> for Luminence, a-channel and b-channel, but don't ask me what the
> heck that's supposed to mean.
I suspect that that's what's more commonly known as YIQ and which
forms the basis of the US's poor NTSC[2] color television standard.
The basic notion is that one component, Y, can be used all by itself
as a black-and-white image, while the other two are used to encode the
rest of the color.[3] As you might expect, this doesn't do a
tremendously good job.
The one thing that it has going for it is that it makes a reasonably
good test to see whether you want to put black text or white text on a
background of a given color. If you compute the YIQ equivalent of the
color and only look at the Y value, it's pretty easy to find a
threshold above which black text looks better and below which white
text looks better.
[1] J.D. Foley, A. Van Dam, _Fundamentals of Interactive Computer
Graphics_, 1982.
[2] Never Twice the Same Color
[3] If anybody cares:
Y 0.30 0.50 0.11 R
I = 0.60 -0.28 -0.32 * G
Q 0.21 -0.52 0.31 B
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |When you're ready to break a rule,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you _know_ that you're ready; you
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |don't need anyone else to tell
|you. (If you're not that certain,
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |then you're _not_ ready.)
(650)857-7572 | Tom Phoenix
Michael West
> I suspect that that's what's more commonly known as YIQ and which
> forms the basis of the US's poor NTSC[2] color television standard.
> The basic notion is that one component, Y, can be used all by itself
> as a black-and-white image, while the other two are used to encode the
> rest of the color.[3] As you might expect, this doesn't do a
> tremendously good job.
>
> The one thing that it has going for it is that it makes a reasonably
> good test to see whether you want to put black text or white text on a
> background of a given color. If you compute the YIQ equivalent of the
> color and only look at the Y value, it's pretty easy to find a
> threshold above which black text looks better and below which white
> text looks better.
Wouldn't testing it for readability make even more
sense? So many variables (stroke weight, character
spacing, line spacing) are ignored in this formula. I
wonder if it is to blame for so many unreadable
web page designs.
--
Michael West
Melbourne, Australia
Maria Conlon
> Maria Conlon schrieb:
>> rewboss wrote in part:
>> [...]
>>> Anyway, as I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself, there
>>> are actually only three colours: red, green and blue. Everything
>>> else is a mixture of these three.
>>
>> But I've always heard that the three primary colors are red,
>> *yellow,* and blue. What happened?
>
> That's a simplification for the benefit of schoolchildren.
Yes, I was a schoolchild when I learned about red, yellow, and blue
being the primary colors.
>......You were
> taught about primary colours for pigments, which are actually cyan,
> magenta and yellow. But cyan looks like sky-blue, and magenta is a
> sort of purplish red, so your teachers called them "blue" and "red"
> to avoid confusing you too much.
You think? I'm thinking that it was just what was generally accepted at
the time. Is that a possibility? (I started first grade in 1949.)
What are schoolchildren taught nowadays? (I guess I should check with my
grandson when he gets settled into first grade this fall.)
By the way, thanks to all who answered my question. I never realized
that the "primary colors" thing was so complicated!
Maria Conlon
Still humming "Lavender Blue..."
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
>> The one thing that it has going for it is that it makes a
>> reasonably good test to see whether you want to put black text or
>> white text on a background of a given color. If you compute the
>> YIQ equivalent of the color and only look at the Y value, it's
>> pretty easy to find a threshold above which black text looks better
>> and below which white text looks better.
>
> Wouldn't testing it for readability make even more sense?
In between reading the background color from the config file and
writing the text to the screen, there's rarely time to run much in the
way of human subjects testing.
> So many variables (stroke weight, character spacing, line spacing)
> are ignored in this formula. I wonder if it is to blame for so many
> unreadable web page designs.
I highly doubt it. The only thing it could be blamed for, if anybody
used it, was the wrong choice of black or white text against a
particular colored background. I used it on fixed-pitch single-font[1]
terminals, where people color-coded the background to signal various
things and needed to be able to write text that would be readable
against whatever color was chosen (on other grounds).
[1] Okay, you had "bold", too.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>rewboss wrote in part:
>[...]
>> Anyway, as I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself, there
>> are actually only three colours: red, green and blue. Everything else
>> is a mixture of these three.
>
>But I've always heard that the three primary colors are red, *yellow,*
>and blue. What happened?
It depends on whether you are talking about light or pigments.
Laura F Spira
> rewboss wrote in part:
> [...]
>
>>Anyway, as I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself, there
>>are actually only three colours: red, green and blue. Everything else
>>is a mixture of these three.
>
>
> But I've always heard that the three primary colors are red, *yellow,*
> and blue. What happened?
I'm sure we discussed this about a year ago. I remember being deeply
shocked by this apparent change and asking quite a lot of people what
they thought were the primary colours. The majority included yellow
rather than green which I found reassuring but we are all wrong, it
would seem.
Stewart Gordon
<snip>
> That's a simplification for the benefit of schoolchildren. You were taught
> about primary colours for pigments, which are actually cyan, magenta and
> yellow. But cyan looks like sky-blue, and magenta is a sort of purplish red,
> so your teachers called them "blue" and "red" to avoid confusing you too
> much.
At the expense of calling red "orange", blue "violet" and black "brown".
Yellow and green are about the only ones they get right....
Stewart.
--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Evan Kirshenbaum
There's an interesting history of color at
http://www.coloryourcarpet.com/History/ColorHistory.html
It implies that CMY is *very* recent (1990), although I know it was
treated in graphics texts by the early '80s, so I don't know how much
credence to lend it. Treating red, yellow, and blue as primary
appears to go back to 1613. Painters evidently simply moved their
"red" and "blue" closer to to magenta and cyan with the introduction
of things like "Prussian blue".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |So when can we quit passing laws and
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |raising taxes? When can we say of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |our political system, "Stick a fork
|in it, it's done?"
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke
(650)857-7572
Sara Lorimer
> I don't believe in purple...if it's qualitatively different from blue, an
> awful lot of things called green need to have names of their own as
> well....
My 19-month-old son thinks all colors are purple ("puh-puh").
--
SML
http://pirate-women.com
Areff
> My 19-month-old son thinks all colors are purple ("puh-puh").
So he's picking up the traditional non-rhotic accent? Ex-cellent!
--
Steve Hayes
You're the second one who has said this.... maybe I've missed something
Cyan, magenta and yellow are the complementaries of red, green and blue light.
These are what you see in colour negatives (if you strip away the orange
masking used in some films).
If you mix a colour with its complementary you get white.
Shine a blue light and a yellow light on a screen, and the screen appears
white.
But if you mix blue and yellow *pigments* you get not white, but green.
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney wrote:
>
>> I don't believe in purple...if it's qualitatively different from blue, an
>> awful lot of things called green need to have names of their own as
>> well....
>
>My 19-month-old son thinks all colors are purple ("puh-puh").
The chosen one!...our future leader!...the one whose coming was foretold, who
will lead the protanopic revolt against our chromatic oppressors!...r
rewboss
news:40c543b7....@news.saix.net...
Right. Because one's an additive model, the other is subtractive.
If you think how colours work, it's obvious that primary additive colours
are the complementaries of primary subtractive colours, and vice versa.
Let's say you have some cyan pigment. White light hits it. White light can
be thought of as being made up of red, green and blue light in equal
proportions. (There's more to it than that, of course, as this thread
already shows, but this is a thought experiment so we can simplify things.)
Cyan pigment absorbs red light, leaving green and blue to be reflected,
making cyan. Note that cyan pigment actually absorbs its own complementary
colour. Next to it is some yellow pigment, which absorbs blue and reflects
red and green. Now mix the two pigments. The resulting mixture absorbs both
red and blue, leaving only green to be reflected.
The complementary colour of a primary colour is a mixture of the other two
colours; and since a secondary colour is a mixture of two primary colours,
the three complementary colours in either the RGB or CMY model are also the
secondary colours of each respectively; and the RGB secondary colours are
the same as the CMY primary colours and vice versa.
In practice, of course, it never works this well because reality is far more
complicated; but the two colour models are related in a way that is actually
very logical and easy to grasp.
(And yes, mixing blue and yellow instead of cyan and yellow gives you green
as well; but it's a different shade of green, although you can probably
compensate by adjusting the proportions involved.)
Robert Bannister
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:15:22 +0200, "rewboss" <rew...@rewboss.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Maria Conlon" <mariaco...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>news:2ijigbF...@uni-berlin.de...
>>
>>>rewboss wrote in part:
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>Anyway, as I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself, there
>>>>are actually only three colours: red, green and blue. Everything else
>>>>is a mixture of these three.
>>>
>>>But I've always heard that the three primary colors are red, *yellow,*
>>>and blue. What happened?
>>
>>That's a simplification for the benefit of schoolchildren. You were taught
>>about primary colours for pigments, which are actually cyan, magenta and
>>yellow. But cyan looks like sky-blue, and magenta is a sort of purplish red,
>>so your teachers called them "blue" and "red" to avoid confusing you too
>>much.
>
>
> You're the second one who has said this.... maybe I've missed something
>
> Cyan, magenta and yellow are the complementaries of red, green and blue light.
>
> These are what you see in colour negatives (if you strip away the orange
> masking used in some films).
>
> If you mix a colour with its complementary you get white.
>
> Shine a blue light and a yellow light on a screen, and the screen appears
> white.
>
> But if you mix blue and yellow *pigments* you get not white, but green.
>
magenta was just a word I knew, but hardly ever used. When I did Art at
school, we called red, green, blue and yellow 'primary' colours, to
distinguish them from pastel and other shades and hues.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 12:11:22 -0400, "Maria Conlon" <mariaco...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>rewboss wrote in part:
>>[...]
>>
>>>Anyway, as I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself, there
>>>are actually only three colours: red, green and blue. Everything else
>>>is a mixture of these three.
>>
>>But I've always heard that the three primary colors are red, *yellow,*
>>and blue. What happened?
>
>
> It depends on whether you are talking about light or pigments.
>
>
Are you really saying that if you mix blue and yellow paint, you don't
get green? That's just not true. Maybe you're talking about printer
inks; I don't know.
--
Rob Bannister
Maria Conlon
> Right. Because one's an additive model, the other is subtractive.
Word issue:
Why not "addive/subtractive"? "Additive/subtractitive"? Or
"additional/subtractional"?
("Additive" and "subtractrive" don't sound right to me as opposites, or
even as a pairing. It's the suffixes that cause the disharmony.)
Maria Conlon
Fussy? Me? Surely you jest.
Eric Schwartz
> But I had never heard of cyan until I got a colour computer. Even
> magenta was just a word I knew, but hardly ever used.
I remember when I lost my Rocky Horror virginity, one of the test
questions they asked at the door was, "What's your favorite color?"
The answer should be obvious to anyone who's seen the movie, and no,
on DVD does NOT count.
-=Eric
--
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
-- Blair Houghton.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> rewboss wrote:
>> Right. Because one's an additive model, the other is subtractive.
>
> Word issue:
>
> Why not "addive/subtractive"? "Additive/subtractitive"? Or
> "additional/subtractional"?
Because they come from "addition" and "subtraction", I'd guess.
According to MWCD11, we got "addition" from Anglo-French and "add"
directly from Latin, both in the fourteenth century. "Subtraction"
and "subtract" came from Latin in the sixteenth. "Additive" and
"subtractive" are both first found at the end of the seventeenth.
The original Latin words were "addere" and "subtrahere". The
Anglo-French "addicion" came from an inflected form.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If I am ever forced to make a
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |choice between learning and using
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |win32, or leaving the computer
|industry, let me just say it was
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |nice knowing all of you. :-)
(650)857-7572 | Randal Schwartz
Aaron J. Dinkin
> Why not "addive/subtractive"? "Additive/subtractitive"?
Because the suffix "-ive", like the suffix "-ion", is (generally)
attached to the Latin so-called supine stem - in these cases, "addit-"
and "subtract-". The asymmetry in this case is because, among English
verbs that come from Latin, some are taken from the supine stem (like
"subtract") and and some from the basic stem (like "add"). Sometimes the
same Latin verb was borrowed both ways, like "deduce" and "deduct".
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Maria Conlon
>
> Word issue:
>
> Why not "addive/subtractive"? "Additive/subtractitive"? Or
> "additional/subtractional"?
>
> ("Additive" and "subtractrive" don't sound right to me as opposites,
> or even as a pairing. It's the suffixes that cause the disharmony.)
Thanks to Evan and Aaron for the answers. I learn something new every
day...
(Now, what was it that I learned last Monday?)
Maria Conlon
Steve Hayes
This seems to deserve a thread on its own.
I'll repeat what i said in the other thread - it depends on whether you are
talking about light or pigments.
The primary colours for *pigments* are red, yellow and blue.
You get your box of paintd and mix blue and yellow with a bit of medium/a
(water, oil, pempera etc) and you get green.
But when you are dealing with *light*, as in photography, the primary colours
are red, blue and green, with their complemntaries cyan, yellow and magenta.
Colour photographic film works by having different layers - one sensitive to
red, one to blue and one to green.
If it is a negative film, red objects will appear as cyan, blue objects as
yellow, and green ones as magenta. When it is printed as a positive, the
colours come the right way round again. So in colour negatives, grass looks
pink, and clear sky looks dark brown.
Old fashioned colour printing used colour separations, with three different
negatives being made through red, blue and green filters (or cyan, yellow and
magenta ones). A plate is then made from the negative, and printed with the
same colour ink as the filter.
Most colour printing processes are four colour - cyan, yellow, magenta and
black.
Peter Moylan
>It should also be noted that the reason that this works is that there
>are three types of color receptor in the eye (for most people, at
>least), and that these receptors react most strongly to light in,
>roughly, the red, green, and blue regions of the spectrum. If we had
>different numbers of receptors, we'd have different numbers of primary
>colors, and if we had receptors that had different responses, we'd
>have different primary colors.
That's probably why cats don't understand TV. Everything is the
wrong colour to them.
Oh, yes, and Little Green Men aren't really green. We can't see
their true colour because we lack the fourth colour receptor.
Purple people eaters, on the other hand, will eat practically
anyone. With only one type of receptor in their one eye, they think
all people are purple.
--
Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
Peter Moylan
Peter Moylan
>"david56" <bass.c...@ntlworld.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:MPG.1b2eb1879...@news.individual.net...
>> R H Draney typed thus:
>> > Further thread drift: I am told that one of the giveaway strings for
>> > identifying an e-mail as spam is "#ff0000"...this is supposed to be a
>better
>> > predictor of spamitude than the more obvious "viagra", "lottery" or
>> > "Nigeria"...it's the HTML code for the color red....r
>>
>> That's an easy one. If it's got html code, reject it.
>
>I get lots of genuine e-mail in HTML format.
For suitably defined values of "genuine", sure. The big question,
though, is whether it was worth reading. Now that I'm using a
very effective junk filter (bogofilter) a clear picture is
emerging. About 95% of my mail is spam, and most of that contains
HTML attachments or is purely in HTML. Of the remaining non-spam
mail, almost all is in plain text. The ones with the HTML might
not technically be spam, but they're almost all from people I'd
rather not hear from.
The ones from our local administrative people are the worst.
Mail messages embedded inside other mail messages (that's the only
way they know how to forward mail). After digging down several
levels, and skipping all the HTML that turns out to be the single
word "Regards" embellished with style sheets and whatnot, I finally
get down to the embedded MS-word document - or, sometimes these
days, the embedded Powerpoint presentation - that contains half
a dozen lines of plain text. The net cost is several minutes
of my time and a megabyte of hard disk to hold the six-line
message. I'm seriously thinking of retraining the junk filter
to send all admin memos straight to the bit bucket.
R J Valentine
Peter Moylan
>Stewart Gordon filted:
>>And grey - it's light black. So can the concepts of "light" and "dark"
>>- they're whitish and blackish.
>
>ObPondialDifference: gray is a color, grey is a colour....
Not at all; they're both shades. (My teachers were most insistent
that black and white are not colours.) A shade is what a colo(u)r
becomes after it dyes and enters the undercoat.
Peter Moylan
>About six months ago, with the help of someone bearing XX chromosomes, I sewed a
>button in the cuff of every pair of slacks I own so I can figure out what I can
>or cannot wear them with and avoid being laughed at by small children.
Small female children, I presume. But what a brilliant idea. Those
of us who are puce-challenged would finally have a way out of those
endless exchanges:
"You're not going out dressed like that, are you?"
"I suppose not. Which part isn't right?"
"Oh, come on, isn't it obvious?"
"The socks. It must be the socks. Would black socks be OK?"
"It's nothing to do with the socks. Just look at yourself
in the mirror."
(Looks in mirror.) "Oh. You mean I should comb my hair again?"
"Stop pretending to be stupid. You can SEE what is wrong."
"No, I can't. Please tell me. Is it the shirt?"
And so on. It's even more frustrating than that "What do you
think about the change?" torture. ("Well, I like your new
skirt." "I've had this skirt for ten years." etc.)
Let's see. If I sew a grey button into my greyish-brown trousers,
and a brown button into my brownish-grey trousers, and a blue one
into the it's-really-green-but-she-insists-it's-blue ... aargh!,
this is going to drive me crazy.
Steve Hayes
NO! NO! NO!
Are you really saying you cannot distinguish between "light" and "pigment"?
When you mix blue and yellow PAINT (ie pigments) you get green.
When you mix blue and yellow LOGHT you get white.
Please look up "light" and "pigment" in a dictionary.
Tony Cooper
Moylan) wrote:
>Let's see. If I sew a grey button into my greyish-brown trousers,
>and a brown button into my brownish-grey trousers, and a blue one
>into the it's-really-green-but-she-insists-it's-blue ... aargh!,
>this is going to drive me crazy.
In the 60s there was a line of neckties with Wembley brand name. Each
tie had a tag on the back that included "Wear with (brown, gray, blue,
or black) suit".
Lea V. Usin
>
> It implies that CMY is *very* recent (1990), although I know it was
> treated in graphics texts by the early '80s, so I don't know how much
> credence to lend it. Treating red, yellow, and blue as primary
> appears to go back to 1613. Painters evidently simply moved their
> "red" and "blue" closer to to magenta and cyan with the introduction
> of things like "Prussian blue".
Well, I can attest to CMY being current in 1969, when I learned about it
in Stage Design class. I'm sure it's way earlier but have no proof at hand.
Cheers, Lea
--
Lea V. Usin
ac...@ncf.ca
R H Draney
And more recently someone came out with "Garanimals", a line of garments for
children coded to different animals on the tags...you could wear any giraffe
shirt with a giraffe pair of pants, but never a zebra with a lion...the idea's
great, but something like it needs to continue into the adult sizes....r
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney infrared:
>>
>>ObPondialDifference: gray is a color, grey is a colour....
>
>Not at all; they're both shades. (My teachers were most insistent
>that black and white are not colours.) A shade is what a colo(u)r
>becomes after it dyes and enters the undercoat.
Your teachers were mistaken...black is a colo(u)r; white is a metal...or at
least that's the rule when you call them sable and argent respectively....r
Steve Hayes
You yourself have given the clue -- when you used the word "art".
That shows you were dealing with PIGMENTS, not with LIGHT.
Back in the early days of colour photography (from Greek "photos" = "light"
and "grapho" = "I write or draw", that is, drawing with LIGHT and not with
PIGMENTS) there were many different processes for producing colour
photographs.
Some were additive (they achieved their results by adding red, green and blue
light in different proportions). Early TV projection systems also used an
additive system - they had three lenses, projecting the red, green and blue
parts of the picture on to a screen.
Others were subtractive - they had layers of silver images that were converted
to dye in the developing process.
An example of the Additive process was Dufaycolor (you'll see examples in
issues of National Geographic from the 1930s) The film was printed with a
pattern of red lines and blue and green squares, and the silver emulsion went
over the top of that. The film went into the camera backwars, with the
emulsion at the back, and the photo was taken through the film.
The developing process was normal black and white, except that it was reverse
- half way through the negative processing, the film was exposed to light and
the original negative image was bleached. The new image was developed as a
positive. The resul was a black and white positive image. But when projected
through a slide projector, the light went through the pattern of red lines and
blue and green squares, and was recombined to show the picture in its original
colours.
The colour was far more accurate than in subtractive processes, because the
dye used in the projection was precisely the same as that used for taking the
original photograph. In subtractive processes the dyes are formed chemically
during development. Subtractive processes (most colour films you get today)
won in the end, because what they lost in colour accuracy they gained in
sharpness -- there is no pattern of red, green and blue dots and lines.
But TV and computer screens are additive. They work by adding red, green and
blue light. NOT red, yellow and blue light.
Mike Lyle
Isn't the point that there are primary colours for paint -- RYB -- and
for light -- CMY --, corresponding to additive and subtractive ways of
achieving the other colours? I feel sure (but of course could be
wrong) that I knew about this when taking 'O' Level GCE in 1958,
because I remember noticing the surprising colours of shadows under
the school stage lighting.
Mike.
Michael Hamm
part:
> > (Now, what was it that I learned last Monday?)
>
> "Subtrahend".
Dividend, minuend, subtrahend, augend, addend, summand, integrand,
radicand. Cool words, not often heard (except summand and integrand). I
assume -nd is some sorta Latin suffix or somethin'?
(Are there any I haven't thought of?)
Michael Hamm NB: Of late, my e-mail address is being
AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis 'spoofed' a bit. That is, spammers send
msh...@math.wustl.edu e-mail that seems to be from me. Please
http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ realize that no spam is in fact from me.
Stewart Gordon
<snip>
>> But if you mix blue and yellow *pigments* you get not white, but green.
>
>
> Right. Because one's an additive model, the other is subtractive.
<snip>
Wrong. Because they're not the same blue and the same yellow.
Pure blue light and pure yellow light do indeed make white.
Pure blue pigment and pure yellow pigment make black.
Stewart.
--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the
unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment. Please keep
replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
dcw
Michael Hamm <mh...@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote:
>Dividend, minuend, subtrahend, augend, addend, summand, integrand,
>radicand. Cool words, not often heard (except summand and integrand). I
>assume -nd is some sorta Latin suffix or somethin'?
Gerund. "Dividend" means "thing to be divided". Applied to money,
it's probably much more often heard than the others. (I guess "reverend"
is out of place here.) The Latin suffix is actually "-andum" or "-endum".
David
Maria Conlon
> Maria Conlon wrote:
> } (Now, what was it that I learned last Monday?)
>
> "Subtrahend".
>
I learned that longer ago than last Monday. In fact, I learned it long
enough ago to have forgotten it (not that I have, despite there having
been no reason to remember it).
Maria Conlon
Which came first -- the minuend or the subtrahend?
K. Edgcombe
>radicand. Cool words, not often heard (except summand and integrand). I
>
Multiplicand.
Katy
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Isn't the point that there are primary colours for paint -- RYB -- and
> for light -- CMY --, corresponding to additive and subtractive ways of
> achieving the other colours?
Yes and no. A correct restatement would be
there are primary colours for *light* -- *RGB* -- and for *paint*
-- CMY --, corresponding to additive and subtractive ways of
achieving the other colours?
Light is additive, and the third primary is green. Paint (ink,
pigment) is subtractive.
> I feel sure (but of course could be wrong) that I knew about this
> when taking 'O' Level GCE in 1958, because I remember noticing the
> surprising colours of shadows under the school stage lighting.
I'm fairly certain that when the color separation process was
presented to us in the early '70s, it was presented as splitting into
(and printing using) red, yellow, and blue. But they may well have
really been using cyan and magenta and either the terms were being
simplified for schoolkids or people in the industry simply called
magenta and cyan "red" and "blue", either because it was simpler or as
a holdover from days when they really did use red and blue ink.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |This case--and I must be careful
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |not to fall into Spooner's trap
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |here--concerns a group of warring
|bankers.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
R H Draney
>
>Dividend, minuend, subtrahend, augend, addend, summand, integrand,
>radicand. Cool words, not often heard (except summand and integrand). I
>assume -nd is some sorta Latin suffix or somethin'?
I'd guess "dividend" is the most commonly-heard of all the ones you list....
>(Are there any I haven't thought of?)
"Multiplicand"...unfortunately, its companion word, "multiplier", is not of the
desired form....r
Evan Kirshenbaum
> When you mix blue and yellow LOGHT you get white.
For suitably complementary and fully saturated values of "blue" and
"yellow".
> Please look up "light" and "pigment" in a dictionary.
Which of the entries is going to tell me what "LOGHT" is?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Of course, over the first 10^-10
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |seconds and 10^-30 cubic
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |centimeters it averages out to
|zero, but when you look in
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |detail....
(650)857-7572 | Philip Morrison
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Back in the early days of colour photography (from Greek "photos" =
> "light" and "grapho" = "I write or draw", that is, drawing with
> LIGHT and not with PIGMENTS) there were many different processes for
> producing colour photographs.
>
> Some were additive (they achieved their results by adding red, green
> and blue light in different proportions).
Or orange, green, and purple, in the case of the Lumiéres' Autochrome
method.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Never attempt to teach a pig to
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |sing; it wastes your time and
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |annoys the pig.
| Robert Heinlein
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Robert Bannister
I did my O Level GCE in Physics in 1956 and we had been taught (for
light) the primary colours were blue, magenta and green. I did O Level
Art in 1957 (in 1st Yr. VI) where we were taught that blue, red, green
and yellow were 'the primary colours' - I suspect a rather different
usage of 'primary'.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> I'm fairly certain that when the color separation process was
> presented to us in the early '70s, it was presented as splitting into
> (and printing using) red, yellow, and blue. But they may well have
> really been using cyan and magenta and either the terms were being
> simplified for schoolkids or people in the industry simply called
> magenta and cyan "red" and "blue", either because it was simpler or as
> a holdover from days when they really did use red and blue ink.
I feel they may be some confusion in this thread between paint, printer
ink and film colours. The CMY thing seems to have come on the scene with
printer inks, not with paints.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> This seems to deserve a thread on its own.
>
> The primary colours for *pigments* are red, yellow and blue.
> But when you are dealing with *light*, as in photography, the primary colours
> are red, blue and green, with their complemntaries cyan, yellow and magenta.
> Most colour printing processes are four colour - cyan, yellow, magenta and
> black.
This is how the thread became confusing: it seems some people were
talking about paints and others about ink and colour photography, and I
am sure I quoted the wrong message when I replied to you before.
Someone, somewhere in this thread stated, without qualification, that
CMY were the primary colours for pigments. I had never heard the word
'cyan' before the middle 80s, so I was sure it must refer to computer
printers and most certainly not the paints used in art. Yeah, I learned
about light in physics at school nearly 50 years ago.
--
Rob Bannister
Maria Conlon
> Steve Hayes writes:
>
>> When you mix blue and yellow LOGHT you get white.
>
> For suitably complementary and fully saturated values of "blue" and
> "yellow".
>
>> Please look up "light" and "pigment" in a dictionary.
>
> Which of the entries is going to tell me what "LOGHT" is?
I think I'd try a Scots dictionary, myself. "Loght" just *looks* like
something a Scot would say (not that it would be clearly understood by
non-Scots).
Maria Conlon
Evan Kirshenbaum
I was speaking of offset printing.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Marge: You liked Rashomon.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Homer: That's not how *I* remember
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | it.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Evan Kirshenbaum
> This is how the thread became confusing: it seems some people were
> talking about paints and others about ink and colour photography, and
> I am sure I quoted the wrong message when I replied to you before.
>
> Someone, somewhere in this thread stated, without qualification,
> that CMY were the primary colours for pigments. I had never heard
> the word 'cyan' before the middle 80s, so I was sure it must refer
> to computer printers and most certainly not the paints used in
> art. Yeah, I learned about light in physics at school nearly 50
> years ago.
You had probably learned to use "Prussian blue", which apparently
works very much like cyan:
Prussian Blue, a dual-tone transparent color was getting close to
cyan in its transparent undertone. It's deep mass color has a
black-green quality that makes a dirty purple, but nice
greens. Prussian Blue is iron and the gas cyanogen. Heated
Prussian Blue made a permanent Prussian Brown.
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Articles2/1201/363/page2.php
Cyan has apparently been used in printing for a while. The US patent
database only allows searching back to 1976, and the first mention of
"cyan" is in a patent granted January 6th of that year (applied for in
1973). It's a Xerox patent for "Masking apparatus for a multi-color
electrophotographic printing machine".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Now and then an innocent man is sent
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to the legislature.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Kim Hubbard
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>There's an interesting history of color at
>
> http://www.coloryourcarpet.com/History/ColorHistory.html
>
>It implies that CMY is *very* recent (1990), although I know it was
>treated in graphics texts by the early '80s, so I don't know how much
>credence to lend it. Treating red, yellow, and blue as primary
>appears to go back to 1613. Painters evidently simply moved their
>"red" and "blue" closer to to magenta and cyan with the introduction
>of things like "Prussian blue".
That's absolute nonsense.
It's at least as old as colour negative phorography, which goes back to 1941,
if not earlier.
>--
>Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
> HP Laboratories |So when can we quit passing laws and
> 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |raising taxes? When can we say of
> Palo Alto, CA 94304 |our political system, "Stick a fork
> |in it, it's done?"
> kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke
> (650)857-7572
>
> http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
R J Valentine
...
} Which came first -- the minuend or the subtrahend?
The minuend (that which is to be diminished). From that is subtracted the
subtrahend (that which is to be subtracted). Addition is like it, except
the augend comes first (that which is to be augmented), and to that is
added the addend (that ...). Anymore they tent to forget about mentioning
the augend, and you just start with the first of two or more addends. Of
such shortcuts is the end of the world paved (or something).
But, wait! You were making an egg yolk. (Sorry.)
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Steve Hayes
I learnt about primary colours in pigments in primary school in about 1949,
and about primary colours in light at high school in 1953 - we were supposed
to be doing heat that year, but I found it boring, and read ahead in the text
book to the sections on light and electricity.
I have a book published in 1958, "Colour photography for the amateur" which
describes the primary colours for light as red, green and blue.
It has little diagrams to illustrate it, and goes on to point our that:
Red + Green = Yellow (ie not Blue)
Red + Blue = Magenta (ie not Green)
Blue + Green = Cyan (ie not Red).
Additive colours add the different components of a picture
If you start with a dark screen, and shine a red light on it, it's red. If you
add a blue light, it's magenta. If you add a green light, it's white.
If you shine the light through positive photographs taken with the
corresponding filters, you get a full colour picture.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> writes:
>
>> This is how the thread became confusing: it seems some people were
>> talking about paints and others about ink and colour photography, and
>> I am sure I quoted the wrong message when I replied to you before.
>>
>> Someone, somewhere in this thread stated, without qualification,
>> that CMY were the primary colours for pigments. I had never heard
>> the word 'cyan' before the middle 80s, so I was sure it must refer
>> to computer printers and most certainly not the paints used in
>> art. Yeah, I learned about light in physics at school nearly 50
>> years ago.
>
>You had probably learned to use "Prussian blue", which apparently
>works very much like cyan:
>
> Prussian Blue, a dual-tone transparent color was getting close to
> cyan in its transparent undertone. It's deep mass color has a
> black-green quality that makes a dirty purple, but nice
> greens. Prussian Blue is iron and the gas cyanogen. Heated
> Prussian Blue made a permanent Prussian Brown.
>
> http://www.wetcanvas.com/Articles2/1201/363/page2.php
>
>Cyan has apparently been used in printing for a while. The US patent
>database only allows searching back to 1976, and the first mention of
>"cyan" is in a patent granted January 6th of that year (applied for in
>1973). It's a Xerox patent for "Masking apparatus for a multi-color
>electrophotographic printing machine".
It's certainly been used since before WWII.
But while the artists primaries are sometimes identifie with Yellow, Cyan and
Magenta, I don't think that's strictly accurate. It is the impurities in
artists' colours that make their primaries different. Artists' yellow has a
certain amount of green in it, which is why mixing blue and yellow can get
green.
Mike Lyle
> mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle) writes:
>
> > Isn't the point that there are primary colours for paint -- RYB -- and
> > for light -- CMY --, corresponding to additive and subtractive ways of
> > achieving the other colours?
>
> Yes and no. A correct restatement would be
>
> there are primary colours for *light* -- *RGB* -- and for *paint*
> -- CMY --, corresponding to additive and subtractive ways of
> achieving the other colours?
>
> Light is additive, and the third primary is green. Paint (ink,
> pigment) is subtractive.
Thanks: I rarely get them the right way round.
Mike.
Maria Conlon
> Maria Conlon wrote: ...
> } Which came first -- the minuend or the subtrahend?
>
> The minuend (that which is to be diminished). From that is
> subtracted the subtrahend (that which is to be subtracted). Addition
> is like it, except
> the augend comes first (that which is to be augmented), and to that is
> added the addend (that ...). Anymore they tent to forget about
> mentioning
> the augend, and you just start with the first of two or more addends.
> Of
> such shortcuts is the end of the world paved (or something).
>
> But, wait! You were making an egg yolk. (Sorry.)
"S'alright. One's perception can get scrambled every now and then.
Maria Conlon
Sometimes, I look back on what I have posted and say, "that's it;
there can no longer be any doubt about my mental processes. It is
time to fold up the tent and steal away." Of course, my mental
processes being what they are, I forget about all that within
seconds.
Matti Lamprhey
> Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote...
> > mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle) writes:
> >
> > > Isn't the point that there are primary colours for paint -- RYB --
> > > and for light -- CMY --, corresponding to additive and subtractive
> > > ways of achieving the other colours?
> >
> > Yes and no. A correct restatement would be
> >
> > there are primary colours for *light* -- *RGB* -- and for
> > *paint* -- CMY --, corresponding to additive and subtractive
> > ways of achieving the other colours?
> >
> > Light is additive, and the third primary is green. Paint (ink,
> > pigment) is subtractive.
> [..]
>
> Thanks: I rarely get them the right way round.
I haven't perused everything in this thread so I may have missed someone
else making this point: it's quite possible for the paint/ink/pigment
scenario to use the additive mechanism. This is where the dots are very
small and don't overlay each other, but gain their combinatory effect in
the same way as the RGB pixels on a screen. It seems to me that it
would be possible to combine additive and subtractive mechanisms this
way, which could expand the gamut.
Matti
xyz
news:ca64cl$ng6$4...@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au...
>
> "You're not going out dressed like that, are you?"
> "I suppose not. Which part isn't right?"
> "Oh, come on, isn't it obvious?"
> "The socks. It must be the socks. Would black socks be OK?"
> "It's nothing to do with the socks. Just look at yourself
> in the mirror."
> (Looks in mirror.) "Oh. You mean I should comb my hair again?"
> "Stop pretending to be stupid. You can SEE what is wrong."
> "No, I can't. Please tell me. Is it the shirt?"
>
> And so on. It's even more frustrating than that "What do you
> think about the change?" torture. ("Well, I like your new
> skirt." "I've had this skirt for ten years." etc.)
>
> Let's see. If I sew a grey button into my greyish-brown trousers,
> and a brown button into my brownish-grey trousers, and a blue one
> into the it's-really-green-but-she-insists-it's-blue ... aargh!,
> this is going to drive me crazy.
>
Women. Ignore them, they're all crazy.
As I said near the start of this thread, there are eleven colours (I think -
can't be bothered to work it out again). Here are the rules:
(1) These "shade" things in between colours exist, but they're irrelevant.
(2) Any colour "goes" with any other colour.
That's it. Concentrate on the important things in life, like interpretations
of the offside rule.
Mike M
Alan Jones
> In article <slrne261u9....@goodwill.io.com>,
> Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>
>> I wonder whether you address an ophthalmologist as "Dr." or "Mr."
>> (since ophthalmology is often considered a surgical specialty).
>
> Mine's a "Mr". Does laser-zapping count as surgery?
Agreed. I'm sure they can wield cold steel as well as a laser beam, and they
certainly count as surgeons: so "Mr".
Alan Jones