Todd Walton wrote:
On 6/22/05, Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So a meteor may be a streak of light, but it's not ONLY a streak of light.
I don't know... Looking at the following page:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:meteor
I see several definitions that say it's *only* the light, and several
that say it's the light *or* the rock. As a layman, I would guess
that "meteor" refers to physical material. So, all in all, I'm
willing to bet that "meteor" means only the light, and that calling
the rock a meteor is in the class of Common Mistake.
Besides, why would you use the same word to refer to the rock and to
the light it gives off? If the rock is meteor, then why wouldn't they
just call the light light? Probably, calling the light meteor came
first.
Because the light was the first thing to be observed. It was later
associated with the rock as the result of research. English borrows
words from English itself with the same reckless abandon with which it
borrows / steals them from other languages.
Nobody else has yet mentioned that 'meteorology' is the study of
atmospheric phenomena, including weather. Transient lights in the sky
come from the atmosphere more often than from elsewhere, making it
appropriate to refer to the streak of light as a meteor. Now that we
know the streak of light was caused by a rock heating up in the
atmosphere, it is also appropriate to refer to the rock as a meteor (or
the appropriate variation on that word).
As for calling the light 'light' rather than 'meteor' ... would you call
hail 'snow'? It is a particular, well-enough-understood way to refer to
a particular phenomenon.
If a comet / asteroid / moon strikes the Earth, would you call the light
it generates passing through the atmosphere 'meteor'? More than likely,
we wouldn't concern ourselves with the trivial phenomenon of light being
briefly generated and would concentrate on the effects of the impact.
James
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
