Timeline for Usage of "matter" and "substance"
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Nov 24, 2012 at 9:27 | history | edited | J.R. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added note on idiomatic usage, since – strictly according to the posted methodology – gray "substance" might fit better.
|
| Nov 24, 2012 at 9:21 | comment | added | J.R. | @Carlo_R.: I think my answer is long enough as it is. As I inferred in my closing paragraph, there are many other contexts in which these two words are used, and my answer was focused solely on the near-synonymous contexts of those two original words. Antimatter? That's another matter altogether. :^) | |
| Nov 24, 2012 at 2:23 | comment | added | user19148 | J.R., in the name of completeness you would have cited the "antimatter" too; for at least concluding that the *antisubstance does not exisit. So the parallelism between the two is totally broken. | |
| Nov 24, 2012 at 1:27 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | I'm deleting my answer in favour of this one. It's a bit long, but nice and clear. | |
| Nov 24, 2012 at 1:20 | comment | added | J.R. | @IlyaKogan: Yes, I think so. That's a rather informal way to describe it; nevertheless, it seems to be a nice and succint way describe the distinction. | |
| Nov 24, 2012 at 1:06 | comment | added | escargot agile | Your answer is very enlightening, thank you very much! While reading your examples another way of phrasing the distinction came to my mind: Could it be that "matter" is used when the actual substance doesn't matter, and "substance" is used when the actual substance matters? | |
| Nov 24, 2012 at 1:03 | vote | accept | escargot agile | ||
| Nov 24, 2012 at 0:46 | history | answered | J.R. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |