 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004Quantum Physics: illusion and reality
I saw a book entited "Quantum Physics: Illusion and Reality." My question is whether there is subtle difference between "Quantum Physics: Illusion and Reality" and "Quantum Physics: Reality and Illusion" Thanks > I saw a book entited "Quantum Physics: Illusion and Reality." My question is > whether there is subtle difference between "Quantum Physics: Illusion and > Reality" and "Quantum Physics: Reality and Illusion" I suppose that you could argue that the order of the terms in the subtitle constitutes some kind of priority, but that is not necessarily the case. "And" is a coordinating conjunction, and the elements around it are afforded equality.  SignatureSimon R. Hughes > I saw a book entited "Quantum Physics: Illusion and Reality." My > question is whether there is subtle difference between "Quantum > Physics: Illusion and Reality" and "Quantum Physics: Reality and > Illusion" There is a subtle difference, in that the former just sounds better to me (American English speaker). Bear in mind that a book title doesn't necessarily reflect an author's preference. SignatureGood luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.tripod.com > There is a subtle difference, in that the former just sounds better > to me (American English speaker). Bear in mind that a book title > doesn't necessarily reflect an author's preference. My wife worked as a college textbook editor (mostly engineering), and I believe that in most cases the titles come from the authors, or at least I never heard her talking about an author who disliked the title. The exception might be on an nth edition, where the current author isn't the original author, or a multi-author work where some of the authors like it better than others. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Now every hacker knows 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | That the secret to survivin' Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Is knowin' when the time is free | And what's the load and queue kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |'Cause everyone's a cruncher (650)857-7572 | And everyone's a user |And the best that you can hope for http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Is a crash when you're through >> ... Bear in mind that a book title >> doesn't necessarily reflect an author's preference. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or at least I never heard her talking about an author who disliked > the title ... I wasn't limiting my comment to college textbooks, but it happens that science textbook authors I've known have occasionally succumbed to editorial pressure to "juice up" their work. 'Course I'd expect to see this less often among mathematicians than among, say, mass market practitioners. BTW I'm not familiar with the captioned book, but it is quite possible that such a title could easily be a popularization effort. I'd hazard that Carl Sagan spent at least a few minutes discussing book titles with his editors, probably between talk show appearances. SignatureGood luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.tripod.com >>> ... Bear in mind that a book title >>> doesn't necessarily reflect an author's preference. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'd hazard that Carl Sagan spent at least a few minutes discussing > book titles with his editors, probably between talk show appearances. But not billions and billions of minutes? -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply Chan S.F.: > > I saw a book entited "Quantum Physics: Illusion and Reality." My > > question is whether there is subtle difference between "Quantum > > Physics: Illusion and Reality" and "Quantum Physics: Reality and > > Illusion" Armond Perretta: > There is a subtle difference, in that the former just sounds better > to me (American English speaker). ... I think we can be more specific. In a title of the form "A: B and C", where B and C are contrasting expressions, there is a certain degree of emphasis on C. The book may be equally about both the B and the C aspects of A, but if not, then the title implies that the C aspect is the one that it's primarily about. While you can't assume it from the title, the "Reality and Illusion" version might even be a book intended to suggest that the whole of quantum physics is an illusion. But no one would use the first title for such a book; more likely it is about illusions people have about the subject, and what the reality is. Similarly, a title of the form "A: B or C?" may be used for a book that takes a neutral attitude, but if not, it suggests that the book will show that A is C, not B. Compare these hypothetical titles: "Next Week's Crisis: Danger or Opportunity?" "Next Week's Crisis: Opportunity or Danger?" SignatureMark Brader | Yet again, I begged him to explain himself in plain Toronto | English. This request always surprises him, as he msb@vex.net | is always under the extraordinary impression that | he has done so. -- Lynn & Jay, "Yes Minister" My text in this article is in the public domain. > Chan S.F.: >>> I saw a book entited "Quantum Physics: Illusion and Reality." My [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > "Next Week's Crisis: Danger or Opportunity?" > "Next Week's Crisis: Opportunity or Danger?" I believe you have quantified my innate feelings about this rather well. SignatureGood luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.tripod.com > > Chan S.F.: > >>> I saw a book entited "Quantum Physics: Illusion and Reality." My [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > I believe you have quantified my innate feelings about this rather well. When Mark put the "or" in there, it made a lot of difference. I agree, "X-Vitamins: Panacea or Fraud" would mean that in the writer's opinion, X-Vitamins were often described as a panacea but more likely were a fraud. "Are they a panacea, as often claimed, or are they -- new thought -- really a fraud?" Reverse "fraud" and "panacea" and you get the opposite message. However, the original question had "and," which seems much more neutral. I think the one named second does linger a bit in the mind, the same way as the last word of nearly any sentence gains a certain emphasis. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > Similarly, a title of the form "A: B or C?" may be used for a book > that takes a neutral attitude, but if not, it suggests that the book > will show that A is C, not B. Compare these hypothetical titles: > > "Next Week's Crisis: Danger or Opportunity?" > "Next Week's Crisis: Opportunity or Danger?" Does anybody remember what was the original "X: Threat or Menace?"? SignatureEvan 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 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |rubric, but luckily it's usually (650)857-7572 |ignored, except by the credulous. | John Lawler http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > Does anybody remember what was the original "X: Threat or Menace?"? Well, here's the earliest examine in Deja Goo; it's from 1983. http://www.google.com/groups?selm=245%40inmet.UUCP&output=gplain But my feeling from the way it's used here is that it must already have been an established phrase at the time. SignatureMark Brader "A moment's thought would have shown him, Toronto but a moment is a long time and thought msb@vex.net is a painful process." -- A. E. Housman > > Does anybody remember what was the original "X: Threat or Menace?"? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But my feeling from the way it's used here is that it must already have > been an established phrase at the time. I found this in a 1972 New York Times article on _The National Lampoon_ humor magazine: [_The National Lampoon_] has also done miniparodies of Cosmopolitan, Harper's Bazaar, The Whole Earth Catalogue, a turn-of-the-century Sears, Roebuck Catalogue of equipment for sadists[,] and has rendered an array of visual styles (Calley looking like Mad's What-Me-Worry boy; F. Scott Fitzgerald in an art-deco comic called "The Zircon as Big as the Taft" and a moralistic poster showing a man, pants down, chasing a girl after reading some "French Porno" and subsequently being arrested, with the caption "Pornography: Threat or Menace?"). I think the phrase "threat or menace" itself may have long been a familiar rhetoricalism, maybe rooted in some particular legal phrase or formula. ... } I think the phrase "threat or menace" itself may have long been a } familiar rhetoricalism, maybe rooted in some particular legal phrase or } formula. I think you're on to something there. The second and simplest definition of "threat" in my trusty old _Black's Law Dictionary_ is "menace". SignatureR. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@smart.net> > > > Does anybody remember what was the original "X: Threat or Menace?"? > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I found this in a 1972 New York Times article on _The National Lampoon_ > humor magazine: [snip] >"Pornography: Threat or Menace?" > > I think the phrase "threat or menace" itself may have long been a > familiar rhetoricalism, maybe rooted in some particular legal phrase or > formula. The 1999 documentary "Grass" includes clips from a black-and-white educational short called "Marijuana: Threat or Menace?". One review says the short is from the 1950s: http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/showreview.php3?ID=3281 > > > > Does anybody remember what was the original "X: Threat or Menace?"? > > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/showreview.php3?ID=3281 You might read it that way, but you could also read it as the reviewer making a little joke by referring to a current catchphrase. There are only about 20 hits for "Marijuana: Threat or Menace" on the Web. There are 53,700 hits for "Reefer Madness," which I know to be an actual example of the sort of propaganda film you mention. If this thing was really the name of a real film, it would turn up in more places. The Internet Movie Database has nothing at all with "threat or menace". They know about "Reefer Madness." I can't swear to what's going on, but I think some of those who are publishing reviews of "Grass" are fostering confusion as to whether "Marijuana: Threat or Menace" is the name of something. It may be a humorous line *in* "Grass" or even shown in "Grass" as a mock documentary. But all that would be modern humor. There's one review of "Grass" that is published in several different places that says: From the story of America's first drug czar, to the absurd scare tactics behind propaganda films like Reefer Madness, and Marijuana: Threat or Menace, director Ron Mann poignantly and humorously exposes the social, political and economic facts behind this enduring weed, and the extent to which it has profoundly shaped our culture. That sure would make people think there is such a film, but still, I think it's a mistake. Mistakes get passed around. (Someone's got to set up the straight lines.) SignatureBest - Donna Richoux > > The 1999 documentary "Grass" includes clips from a black-and-white > > educational short called "Marijuana: Threat or Menace?". One review [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > more places. The Internet Movie Database has nothing at all with "threat > or menace". They know about "Reefer Madness." According to the "Grass" reviews, this was just an educational short, not a full-length film like "Reefer Madness" (aka "Tell Your Children"). IMDb doesn't bother with such things, as far as I can tell. > I can't swear to what's going on, but I think some of those who are > publishing reviews of "Grass" are fostering confusion as to whether [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > That sure would make people think there is such a film, but still, I > think it's a mistake. Mistakes get passed around. The above is the blurb from the distributor of Mann's film, so you'd expect them to get it right: http://www.venturadistribution.com/catalog/serve/4647/Grass I see nothing in other reviews of "Grass" to suggest that "M:ToM" was *not* an actual short film... http://www.miaminewtimes.com/issues/2000-07-13/film3.html The movie opens with a clip from a black-and-white film unbelievably identified as Marijuana: Threat or Menace? (reminiscent of the National Lampoon's "Homosexuality: Disease or Illness?"). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/entertainment/movies/reviews/grassosullivan.htm Although Mann mixes in such sure-fire laugh-getters as clips from propaganda films like the legendary "Reefer Madness" and an educational short that asks "Marijuana: Threat or Menace?," the film's legislative story line the passage of bills, laws and uniform codes of prosecution is a real buzz-kill. > I see nothing in other reviews of "Grass" to suggest that "M:ToM" was > *not* an actual short film... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Menace? (reminiscent of the National Lampoon's > "Homosexuality: Disease or Illness?"). Actually, I read that as saying that whoever wrote it does indeed believe that M:ToM is *not* an actual short film (or at least that that isn't it's name). With the National Lampoon reference, I'd take the "unbelievably identified as" at face value. He thinks they made it up (either the film or the name). SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Well, if you can't believe what you 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |read in a comic book, what can you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |believe?! | Bullwinkle J. Moose kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > I see nothing in other reviews of "Grass" to suggest that "M:ToM" was > > *not* an actual short film... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the "unbelievably identified as" at face value. He thinks they made > it up (either the film or the name). OK, that's a possibility... I thought the reviewer meant that the title was so astonishing as to be verging on self-parody. But the Washington Post clearly assumed that it was an actual film (see previous post), as did the Times-Picayune (from Nexis): Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA), Nov. 3, 2000, p. 11 CinemaPhile: Also on the Big Screen "Grass" is worth a look for its amusing film clips, including vintage educational films such as "Marijuana: Threat or Menace?" and Hollywood classics such as "Reefer Madness." The Detroit News is a little less precise: http://www.detnews.com/2000/entertainment/0929/mgrass/mgrass.htm "Marijuana: Threat or Menace?" So blares the headline of a bit of early-20th-century propaganda about the evil weed. And here's the track listing for a mix CD including a snippet of M:ToM, identified as a "propaganda short": http://www.artofthemix.org/FindAMix/GetContents.asp?strMixID=48379 I guess someone will have to check out the credits to "Grass" to get a definitive answer. If Mann grafted a fake title onto preexisting footage, then he fooled a lot of people. [snip discussion of "Marijuana: Threat or Menace"] > I guess someone will have to check out the credits to "Grass" to get a > definitive answer. If Mann grafted a fake title onto preexisting > footage, then he fooled a lot of people. I kept looking, and came across this interview with the film-maker, Ron Mann: M: Where did you get all that archival footage? RM: The researcher on Atomic Café [an anti-nuclear film] was Rick Pralinger, who's a friend of mine. He sent me on a path--the marijuana trail. It took me to hundreds of archives across America. A lot of the material that Rick himself collects is classroom scare films, social guidance or "mental hygiene" films. Stuff you saw in junior high that has exactly the opposite effect of what's intended. So I collected over 400 hours of anti-marijuana movies, the earliest being High on the Range, a marijuana cowboy movie. It's been said that history is in the outtakes of television, so I went to basements of TV stations, to show the propaganda that the government used. He also says remember that I didn't make this stuff up. It's all facts. So that's his line and he's sticking to it. One more thing, though: there seems to be a trend to *re-name* these old films so they are hip and attractive. "Reefer Madness" is a re-naming of "Tell Your Children." "High on the Range" couldn't be what that silent Western was called -- RHHDAS says "high" wasn't used in that sense until 1944, and there's no record of its existence outside of "Grass" and the specialty market, such as: ...invites all potheads (and other interested parties) to an evening of Drug Film Classics. Four short films -- High on the Range, Dopocoke, a streamlined version of Reefer Madness and Mystery of the Leaping Fish -- screen at 7pm for your edification and amusement. [Toronto, 2000] So there's *still* a chance that "Marijuana: Threat or Menace" is a modern re-naming of a genuine educational film, using the humorous buzzword (so to speak). SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >> > But my feeling from the way it's used here is that it must already have >> > been an established phrase at the time. >> I think the phrase "threat or menace" itself may have long been a >> familiar rhetoricalism, maybe rooted in some particular legal phrase or >> formula. Yes, exactly so. There are many phrases, most of the dating from the earlier fourteenth century, where the law was concerned with clarity of language and intent, so that one word had an earlier English stem (threat) and the other a Norman-French stem (menace). "Cease and desist" is another such phrase, and there are many more. SignatureRegards, Frank Young tipcat@wam.umd.edu 703-527-7684 Post Office Box 2793, Kensington, Maryland 20891 "Videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate... Nunc cognosco ex parte" > >> > But my feeling from the way it's used here is that it must already have > >> > been an established phrase at the time. > >> I think the phrase "threat or menace" itself may have long been a > >> familiar rhetoricalism, maybe rooted in some particular legal phrase or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (threat) and the other a Norman-French stem (menace). "Cease and > desist" is another such phrase, and there are many more. While searching for the phrase, I accidentally typed "without threat or menace" (I had been thinking about similar phrases like "without let or hindrance") and that turned up a legal-use hit: www.cops.usdoj.gov Panhandling by Michael S. Scott Problem-Oriented Guides for Police ... Passive panhandling is soliciting without threat or menace, often without any words exchanged at all - just a cup or a hand held out. I just glanced down the list of plain "threat or menace" hits and saw this one: State of New Jersey Hunting Statutes ... B: No person shall by threat or menace or in any manner , try to deter a person, authorized to make arrests under Title-23, from carrying out his duty So, it does exist as a legal phrase. I wonder what the legal difference is between a t. and an m. Words vs. actions? SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > >> > But my feeling from the way it's used here is that it must already have > >> > been an established phrase at the time. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (threat) and the other a Norman-French stem (menace). "Cease and > desist" is another such phrase, and there are many more. There are many which are said to show this pattern, certainly, but few stand up to careful scrutiny. For example, 'cease' and 'desist' both have French roots, do they not? (And, arguably, they didn't mean the same thing anyway, at least historically; neither did the components of another oft-cited example, 'will and testament'.) > > >> > But my feeling from the way it's used here is that it must already have > > >> > been an established phrase at the time. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > same thing anyway, at least historically; neither did the components of > another oft-cited example, 'will and testament'.) And "hue and cry," which had (has?) a couple of specific legal meanings , is from Old French "_hu et cri, hui et cry ;_ ML. _huesium_ (_hutesium_) _et clamor._" according to *The Century Dictionary* ( www.century-dictionary.com ). SignatureRaymond S. Wise Minneapolis, Minnesota USA E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com > > Does anybody remember what was the original "X: Threat or Menace?"? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But my feeling from the way it's used here is that it must already have > been an established phrase at the time. My understanding is that "Threat or Menace?" derives from Spider-Man comic books of the 1960s. Apparently the character J. Jonah Jameson was portrayed as writing a series of newspaper editorials denouncing the superhero, titled "Spider-Man: Threat or Menace?". Joshua Kreitzer gromit82@hotmail.com > > > Does anybody remember what was the original "X: Threat or Menace?"? > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > was portrayed as writing a series of newspaper editorials denouncing > the superhero, titled "Spider-Man: Threat or Menace?". That was the title of Amazing Spider-Man Annual #15, published in 1981. When the origin of the headline was discussed on rec.arts.comic.misc, no one was able to find it in the Stan Lee comics of the '60s (Jameson's first headline was simply "Spider-Man Menace"): http://groups.google.com/groups?th=6ef70420e99b5f53 > Does anybody remember what was the original "X: Threat or Menace?"? Not the original, but apropos this thread: "COLONS: THREAT OR MENACE?" <http://www.languagehat.com/archives/001073.php> Do the thousands of people who use "Threat or Menace" titles on the web know what it means? Are they using it in jest or seriously? In my minuscule sample, the latter seems to be the case. Or is it maybe a cliche/idiom/whatever that I'm not familiar with? SignatureRay Heindl (remove the Xs to reply) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.