Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rochester.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rochester!FtG
From: FtG@rochester.UUCP (FtG)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: quantum leap
Message-ID: <2481@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4-Aug-83 08:55:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: rocheste.2481
Posted: Thu Aug  4 08:55:38 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Aug-83 16:31:28 EDT
References: <824@gummo.UUCP>, <2380@rochester.UUCP>, <254@princeton.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 17

So somebody disputes my method for deducing that "Quantum leap"
is acceptable usage? But is the conclusion wrong?

I repeat a very simple and obvious fact: "Quantum" as a perfectly ordinary
word meaning "an unspecified (and usually large) amount" predates
Quantum Pysics by two thousand or more years. The extension to mean
a discrete jump (which is small only by macro-world standards) is 
very RECENT.

"Quantum leap" passes what I consider to be the two main tests:

1. Do people unambiguously understand its meaning? Yes.
2. Does the dictionary back it up? Yes. (Mine does anyway.)

Rememer, over 90% of the population never heard of Max Planck and wouldn't
know an h-bar if it hit them over the head.
				FtG