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.
Why wasn't "photographic memory" called "color cinematographic memory" when color cinema appeared in 1934?[edit]
Why wasn't "photographic memory" called "color cinematographic memory" (or, for that matter, "color videographic memory", when color videotape first appeared in 1956), when color cinema first appeared in 1934? Because everything we see in our lives is a moving sequence of images rather than a single image, and I think nearly all photography was still black-and-white when people started using the term "photographic memory". Everything we see is equivalent to a color film (or color video). It is not equivalent to a single image such as a photo. Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone switch to a clumsier, longer designation? It's as quixotically futile as the Académie française trying to get people to use "travail en réseau" instead of "networking".[1]Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many photographs are in color, so the "color" part is not needed. And if the term were to switch, it would probably have become "movie memory", rather than the mouthful posed by the OP. There already is a term for photographic memory, as it links here to Eidetic memory. That's another term that might be too obscure. Googling "cinematographic memory" suggests it's not really a thing. The closest to it appears to be "cinematic memory". I do see references to "videographic memory", but as you indicate, in mainstream usage there appears to be no compelling reason to switch to a different term. A photographic is a picture, and the term "picture" (short for "moving picture") is often used to refer to movies. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, why don't we change phrases every time that a new technology is introduced? Why don't we speak now of an "ultra high definition 3D digital videographic memory"? This is a truly puzzling question indeed. Basemetal 09:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, we don't even change expressions that refer to the technology. Lots of us still "dial" our phone calls, "tape" things on our PVRs, speak of movies as "films", and so on. --69.159.61.230 (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Dial" is especially funny as this is what a dial originally was: No better proof that English doesn't keep up with technology. Basemetal 11:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia, "photographic memory" can actually be called Eidetic memory in general, although the two terms can be distinct in a way that I don't fully understand. I often remember things in terms of a frozen image, a bit like looking at a photograph, and I'm a bit surprised that our article says this isn't photographic memory. It's certainly not cinematic, whichever way one looks at it. Alansplodge (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, memories often aren't really "moving". Often we do only remember very brief flashes of sensation. See Flashbulb memory. Smurrayinchester 15:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we remembered every single moment of our lives and relived it in our minds, then you'd have a motion picture. Ebaillargeon82 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I guessed that the word "dial" was linked etymologically with the word "diurnal", and I was right. Note that the oldest example, the dial of Ahaz, was not what we would call a dial but a shadow cast on a flight of steps. Surprisingly, the word "day" and its German cousin Tag are not cognate with the Latin word of the same meaning. 2A02:C7F:A14:AA00:743F:1F33:248A:1C40 (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
