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