Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2017 April 26
Language desk | ||
---|---|---|
< April 25 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 27 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
April 26
editSpanish/Catalan translation of bulb review
editI am looking for a high wattage LED bulb and the only review that is three stars instead of five says "In dóna la potència llumínica that d'altres làmpares de la mateixa potència (almenys en el cas de la de 150 w)." The Google translate doesn't really make it clear what is being said "that light output which gives the other lamps of the same power (at least in the case of 150 W)." Does it make more sense to a speaker of Spanish or did they mistype? --78.148.99.149 (talk) 04:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- All that I know about Catalan comes from occasionally perusing the book "Teach Yourself Catalan" (ISBN 0-340-19499-5), but I can tell you that the word "that" does not look Catalan to me... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Logically, it has to mean "Giving the same light output as other lamps of the same power" - though the grammar seems a bit muddled. Wymspen (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- If it was performing the same as other lamps of the same power, I wouldn't expect it to be given only three stars. --78.148.99.149 (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- If you consider 3 stars to mean average, and it's light output is average, that doesn't seem so surprising. StuRat (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- BTW, high output LED bulbs are very expensive (as are CFLs). To get around this, I use splitters. I replaced a 150 W equivalent CFL with four 100 W equivalent CFLs, to increase the light level from 150 W to 400 W equivalent, while reducing the price from $15 for the big bulb to $4 for the four smaller bulbs ($1 each). As a bonus, if one burns out, I now have 3 backup bulbs. (3 would have to burn out for it to be darker than it was before.) This solution doesn't fit in all fixtures, but when it does, it's a good one. StuRat (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- [Edit Conflict] Based purely on my knowledge of domestic light bulbs (in the UK market), I would expect an LED bulb to be described as 'giving the equivalent light output to an incandescent bulb of 150 Watts' (or words to that effect), which would be around 2700 lumens.
- Such an LED bulb would actually consume only around 24–30 Watts, while an LED bulb that was actually rated at 150 Watts would be extremely bright, in the ballpark of 15000 lumens, and equivalent to the output of a 1000 Watt incandescent bulb, if such a thing were available.
- A star rating might be an assessment of the average lifetime of the bulb (some designs/makes last on average longer than others), and/or its energy efficiency (some are a little more power hungry than others). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Such things are available, but usually just in outdoor floodlights or industrial-type environments. Dbfirs 19:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- Your phrase "In dóna la potència llumínica that d'altres làmpares de la mateixa potència (almenys en el cas de la de 150 w)" is damaged in some way. There is no such Catalan word as "that," and the initial "in" is suspect. About all I can make out of it is:
- which gives light output... (or maybe: in a given light output...)
- ... other lamps of the same power (at least in the case of 150 watt). —Stephen (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
- [Stephen, I have amended your indentation to clarify that you are responding to the OP, not to my post immediately above yours. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
When Latin decayed as language of science
editWhy has Latin lost its central role as language of science? Why would scientists back then accept to lose contact with their fellow scientists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clipname (talk • contribs) 12:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Latin remained fairly strong through the early 18th century. The question of which language to use was whether a scholar wanted to communicate mainly with a tiny international elite, or with a broader segment of people in their own country. To start with, publishing in Latin guaranteed that very few women would be able to read a book... AnonMoos (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Scientific Latin, as we understand it, is known as New Latin, or sometimes "Neo-Latin". That article has information on its demise. --Jayron32 13:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
digression on the meaning of "decayed" 174.88.10.107 (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Here is an interesting article on the changing preferred languages for scientific publication. It gives a bit of a timeline: Latin from the 15th to 17th centuries, the scientists' local languages over the 18th century, French/German/English in the 19th century and early 20th century, and overwhelmingly English since. The article agrees with AnonMoos that the driving factor was always the desire to reach a wide audience. And it links to another good read here. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)