Artifacts
 

The word is "artefact" from "arte" the ablative of (Latin) "ars" - meaning
"from art" - man-made. Just a moment of pedantry.

(and "aerial", by the way).

Artifacts
 

Geoff Pearson wrote:
The word is "artefact" from "arte" the ablative of (Latin) "ars" -
meaning "from art" - man-made. Just a moment of pedantry.

Don't be apologetic. The world needs pedants.

In fact I've got a letter in Pedantry Corner in the latest edition of
Private Eye!

Artifacts
 

"Geoff Pearson" wrote in message
...
The word is "artefact" from "arte" the ablative of (Latin) "ars" - meaning
"from art" - man-made. Just a moment of pedantry.

So why is it used to describe unintended image distortions?

Artifacts
 

On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 15:38:18 +0100, "Geoff Pearson"
wrote:

The word is "artefact" from "arte" the ablative of (Latin) "ars" - meaning
"from art" - man-made. Just a moment of pedantry.

The Oxford English Dictionary has both spellings.

It says:

In contemporary use, artefact is the usual spelling in British print
sources (and is the preferred form in most publishers' stylesheets,
etc.), but it is rare in U.S. use.

It suggests that the two forms might have slightly different origins:

In ["e"] forms classical Latin arte, ablative of ars art n.1 +
factum, neuter past participle of facere to make (see fact n.).

In ["i"] forms apparently altered after classical Latin arti- ,
alternative stem of ars art n.1, in e.g. artifex artifex n.,
artificium artifice n.

(and "aerial", by the way).

Yes. There is only one accepted spelling of that.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Artifacts
 

On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:03:52 +0100, "Max Demian"
wrote:

"Geoff Pearson" wrote in message
...
The word is "artefact" from "arte" the ablative of (Latin) "ars" - meaning
"from art" - man-made. Just a moment of pedantry.

So why is it used to describe unintended image distortions?

It comes from an extension of the use of the word in scientific
language.

As the OED describes it:

artefact | artifact

2. Science. A spurious result, effect, or finding in a scientific
experiment or investigation, esp. one created by the experimental
technique or procedure itself.

The earliest examples are from microscopy:

1872 G. R. Cutter tr. H. Frey Microscope & Microsc. Technol. xvii.
435 Their cylindrical gland-cells..are also quite perishable, so
that one often meets with only the finely granular, nucleated
contents of the tubular glands as an artefact.
1883 C. Heitzman Microsc. Morphol. Animal Body 83 When he uses
the word membrane in relation to red blood-corpuscles, he means to
speak of what may be called an 'artefact', i.e. 'that apparent
membrane which is made visible by the action of reagents'.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Artifacts
 

In article , Max Demian wrote:
The word is "artefact" from "arte" the ablative of (Latin) "ars" - meaning
"from art" - man-made. Just a moment of pedantry.

So why is it used to describe unintended image distortions?

Because the distortions are "man made" rather than being part of the scene.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Artifacts
 

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 19:01:36 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Max Demian wrote:
The word is "artefact" from "arte" the ablative of (Latin) "ars" - meaning
"from art" - man-made. Just a moment of pedantry.

So why is it used to describe unintended image distortions?

Because the distortions are "man made" rather than being part of the scene.

Rod.

The reasoning I use is on the lines of something that is "left over"
as the result of a process, like archeological artifacts are
left-overs from the past.


--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

Artifacts
 

On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 15:38:18 +0100, "Geoff Pearson"
wrote:

The word is "artefact" from "arte" the ablative of (Latin) "ars"

Ars longa.

Artifacts
 

On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 21:35:07 +0100, wrote:

On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 15:38:18 +0100, "Geoff Pearson"
wrote:

The word is "artefact" from "arte" the ablative of (Latin) "ars"

Ars longa. Vita brevis.

--
Regards, J B Good

Artifacts
 

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:

It suggests that the two forms might have slightly different origins:

Not to mention that fact that etymology doesn't make spelling right or
wrong; it just sometimes explains it.

-- Richard