relative vs. absolute (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Mullins, Bill AMRDEC]

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

1.  "Mohs" is not possessive; it is named after Friedrich Mohs.

2.  OED refers to the "Mohs Scale" (under definition of Mohs) -- I'll
accept their usage as correct.

3.  And check out "scale" n3 in OED -- there are several definitions in
which "scale" does not have a strictly measured increment.  Some scales
do have measured units, some do not.

3a.  The Fujita Scale (tornados) and Beaufort Scale (marine wind speed)
both are based on observed effects, rather than an absolute measurement
of some physical quantity.  The fact that they have been
backwards-defined into ranges of wind speed doesn't change their
original definitions, in which "scale" was not based on a measured unit.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Tom Zurinskas
> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:57 AM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: relative vs. absolute
>
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
---------------
> --------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Tom Zurinskas <truespel at HOTMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: relative vs. absolute
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
> It's confusing to me to call Mohr's ranking a scale.  Scales have
> measured units.  Calling a rank order a scale does not seem right.  If
> you line up people in order of height, do you have a scale?  I think
> not.  Is the 2nd person 4 times taller than the 8th?  I think not.
>
> Calling a ranking a "relative" scale isn't much righter since the word
> "scale" is still used to describe a ranking instead of actual
> measurements.
>
>
> Tom Zurinskas, USA - CT20, TN3, NJ33, FL5+
> see truespel.com
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:06:01 -0400
> > From: aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM
> > Subject: relative vs. absolute
> > To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> >
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
-------------
> ----------
> > Sender: American Dialect Society
> > Poster: Victor
> > Subject: relative vs. absolute
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
> > Perhaps I am overly influenced by mathematics and physics jargon,
but
> I
> > am having trouble figuring out in what sense "relative" is being
used
> in
> > a piece on "absolute hardness". Normal interpretation of "[measure]
X
> > [for Y] is relative" for me is that X is a measure of Y where Y is
> being
> > compared to Z. If a "scale" merely gives some ranking of Y, Z and
> other
> > "stuff", I would never consider describing such a scale as
> "relative".
> >
> > In the example here, I would consider the "absolute hardness" scale
> to
> > be relative, in the sense that the tool that measures it, a
> sclerometer,
> > does so by effectively comparing the test hardness to some reference
> > measure. But the Mohr scale is simply a rank ordering of minerals in
> > terms of hardness without any attempt to relate them, so using
> > "relative" in this context makes no sense to me. And I don't just
> make
> > that distinction in English--hopefully it's not some form of early
> senility.
> >
> > Do I need to get out more or is the following passage really odd
with
> > respect to its use of "relative"? My guess is that the author of the
> > piece reinterpreted the modifier "absolute" to apply to "scale"
> rather
> > than to "hardness" and recovered his meaning of "relative" from
> there.
> >
> > http://www.inlandlapidary.com/user_area/hardness.asp
> >
> > Absolute Hardness
> > The Mohs Hardness Scale is relative. Fluorite at 4 is not twice as
> hard
> > as gypsum at 2; nor is the difference between calcite and fluorite
> > similar to the difference between corundum and diamond. An absolute
> > hardness scale looks a little different than the relative scale.
> Using a
> > piece of sensitive equipment called a sclerometer, a comparison of
> the
> > absolute hardness of minerals can be measured. Most minerals are
> close
> > in hardness. But as hardness increases, the difference in hardness
> > greatly increases as seen in this absolute hardness scale.
> >
> > Using an absolute scale you can say that corundum is actually 4
times
> > softer than diamond, not half as soft as Mohs relative scale leads
> you
> > to believe.
> >
> > Mohr's Scale: 1. Talc, 2. Gypsum, 3. Calcite, 4. Fluorite, 5.
> Apatite,
> > 6. Orthoclase/Feldspar, 7. Quartz, 8. Topaz, 9. Corundum, 10.
Diamond
> > Absolute Hardness Scale: 1 Talc, 3 Gypsum, 9 Calcite, 21 Fluorite,
48
> > Apatite, 72 Orthoclase/Feldspar, 100 Quartz, 200 Topaz, 400
Corundum,
> > 1600 Diamond
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail(r) has ever-growing storage! Don't worry about storage limits.
>
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tu
> torial_Storage_062009
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org