<p>Saying a star is &quot;fainting&quot; is simply an error; the correct terminology is &quot;dimming&quot; or &quot;fading&quot;. (I suspect it's a plausible mistake for non-native speakers if they know about the adjective &quot;faint&quot;, which is common in astronomy -- why wouldn't &quot;to faint&quot; mean &quot;to become fainter&quot;? But it doesn't.)</p>
<p>You say</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A quick check in google scholar for &quot;variable star fainting&quot; returns
many results that seem to use fainting in deliberate way.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>but you don't say how you did the search, how you evaluated the results, and whether you checked for alternatives. Google searches are problematic because their numbers are unreliable estimates and because Google will normally return anything with one or more of the search terms (and will return hits for synonyms as well). It's true that if I just search for &quot;variable star fainting&quot; (<em>without</em> quote marks), I get &quot;about 5,860 results&quot;. But if I replace &quot;fainting&quot; with &quot;fading&quot;, I get &quot;about 43,400 results&quot;, which already suggests &quot;fading&quot; is preferred over &quot;fainting&quot;. If I put quotation marks around the phrase &quot;variable star&quot; <em>and</em> the word &quot;fainting&quot; (telling Google I want pages with both of those exact phrases), I get &quot;about 25 results&quot; with &quot;fainting&quot; (about six of which aren't actually from astronomy) and &quot;about 2,440 results&quot; with &quot;fading&quot; -- so the latter is about two orders of magnitude more common.</p>
<p>A better approach is to use the <a href="https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/" rel="noreferrer">Astrophysics Data System</a>, which is more comprehensive and allows separate searches of abstracts and full texts. Searches of abstracts for &quot;fainting&quot; produces 17 results (two of which are actually about the physiogical phenomenon for astronauts); a search for &quot;fading&quot; produces 3,191 results. (&quot;Dimming&quot; gets 1,545 results.) A full-text searches for the presence of both &quot;variable star&quot; and &quot;fading&quot; gets <a href="https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/filter_database_fq_database=AND&amp;filter_database_fq_database=database%3A%22astronomy%22&amp;fl=identifier%2C%5Bcitations%5D%2Cabstract%2Cauthor%2Corcid_pub%2Corcid_user%2Corcid_other%2Cbibcode%2Ccitation_count%2Ccomment%2Cdoi%2Cid%2Ckeyword%2Cpage%2Cproperty%2Cpub%2Cpub_raw%2Cpubdate%2Cpubnote%2Cread_count%2Ctitle%2Cvolume%2Clinks_data%2Cesources%2Cdata%2Ccitation_count_norm%2Cemail%2Cdoctype&amp;fq=%7B!type%3Daqp%20v%3D%24fq_database%7D&amp;fq_database=(database%3A%22astronomy%22)&amp;q=%3Dfull%3A(%22variable%20star%22%20%22fading%22)&amp;rows=25&amp;sort=date%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc&amp;start=0&amp;p_=0" rel="noreferrer">1,898 results</a>; substituting &quot;fainting&quot; returns a grand total of <a href="https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/filter_database_fq_database=AND&amp;filter_database_fq_database=database%3A%22astronomy%22&amp;fl=identifier%2C%5Bcitations%5D%2Cabstract%2Cauthor%2Corcid_pub%2Corcid_user%2Corcid_other%2Cbibcode%2Ccitation_count%2Ccomment%2Cdoi%2Cid%2Ckeyword%2Cpage%2Cproperty%2Cpub%2Cpub_raw%2Cpubdate%2Cpubnote%2Cread_count%2Ctitle%2Cvolume%2Clinks_data%2Cesources%2Cdata%2Ccitation_count_norm%2Cemail%2Cdoctype&amp;fq=%7B!type%3Daqp%20v%3D%24fq_database%7D&amp;fq_database=(database%3A%22astronomy%22)&amp;q=%3Dfull%3A(%22variable%20star%22%20%22fainting%22)&amp;rows=25&amp;sort=date%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc&amp;start=0&amp;p_=0" rel="noreferrer">8 results</a>.</p>
<p>Finally, I'll note that the follow-on Astronomers Telegram (#13365) that you mentioned in your original question puts &quot;fainting&quot; in scare quotes, suggesting an acknowledgment that the original usage in the first telegram (#13341) was an error.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-15T12:10:37.533Z
"...but you don't say how you did the search, how you evaluated the results, and whether you checked for alternatives" of course I don't; I've just done enough to justify asking the question. Now on to the question that's been asked: "When we say a variable star is "fainting" does it mean more or different than 'dimming' or 'fading'?" Is the answer "No, people don't use it that often, but when they do, yes that's what they mean"? or something else?
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-15T12:12:28.970Z
They mean exactly the same thing as "fading" or "dimming". It's not some special technical term with a unique meaning; it's just an error.
Peter Erwin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-15T12:15:32.157Z
Excellent, thanks!
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-15T11:53:54.997Z
2021-08-15T11:53:54.997Z
Peter Erwin
<p>A comment below the question <a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/34545/7982">Does the current “fainting” of Betelgeuse show any spectral trends that differ from it's normal variability?</a> suggests that "dimming" would be a better term, but I have a hunch that the use of the term "fainting" in this context is more than just a choice of synonyms for decreasing in brightness.</p>

<p>A quick check in google scholar for "variable star fainting" returns many results that seem to use fainting in deliberate way.</p>

<p><strong>Question:</strong> When we say a variable star is "fainting" does it mean more or different than "dimming" or "fading"?</p>

<p>"bonus points" for any history on the term; was it first used by someone speaking proper English rather than that horrible derivative they speak in the US? ;-)</p>

<hr>

<p>If we don't get an authoritative answer here in Astronomy SE in a few days, I'll think about moving this to English SE or History of Science and Math SE. </p>

<p>In the mean time it would be great if people could refrain from:</p>

<ol>
<li>suggesting it would be "better asked" elsewhere</li>
<li>posting speculative or low-quality answers, which will make it impossible for me to then move the question by myself</li>
</ol>

<h2><em>Thanks!</em></h2>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-07T22:49:09.643Z
I think right here on Astronomy is the best place to ask this question, even if it doesn't get a quick answer. The most likely reaction on [ELU.SE] (on which I'm relatively active) would be knee-jerk closure for lack of research, and a recommendation to refer it to the SE site most appropriate for the specialist usage of the word (i.e. here on Astronomy!). If it lingers here without an answer, why not offer a [bounty](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/help/bounty)?
Chappo Hasn't Forgotten
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-08T00:31:09.260Z
@ChappoSaysSEDuddedMonica Thanks, yes I've had mostly good but mixed results in English SE with space word questions; [launch cadence](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/471552/217285), 
[dumb mass](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/466998/217285),
[Ephemerides](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/370655/217285), 
[Nasa vs NASA](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/488580/217285), 
[space jellyfish](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/492223/217285), 
[dog-leg](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/387446/217285), 
[very historic](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/490515/217285).
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-01-08T00:32:14.657Z
I also have some experience with bounties in [Space](https://space.stackexchange.com/users/12102/uhoh?tab=bounties&sort=offered) and [Astronomy](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/users/7982/uhoh?tab=bounties&sort=offered)
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T07:39:29.270Z
yay! Betelgeuse has its own tag now
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-19T14:37:03.133Z
The international language of science is bad English; most people who use it are not native speakers. Thus don't expect that every person uses the most appropriate word (which is even debatable among native speakers) for a thing when there are others which have similar meanings but wrong connotations or different main meanings and usages and use it for fringe or archaic meanings.
planetmaker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-15T23:18:20.933Z
@planetmaker search results in the answer found 8 cases only, so it's quite rare. It seems most/all were published in English language journals which means *the reviewers and the editors of these journals* also allowed this usage. Presumably the editors of main stream, peer-reviewed astronomical journals were competent in English?
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-16T07:13:25.423Z
It's a presumption which often holds but not always. None of the involved people might be native speaker either.
planetmaker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-16T08:50:18.097Z
@planetmaker journal editors have a job to do, presumably they do it well and their background doesn't matter.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-16T08:56:40.907Z
And they all do it flawlessly?
planetmaker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-16T09:02:57.903Z
@planetmaker you said [The international language of science is bad English...Thus don't expect that every person uses the most appropriate word...](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/34547/#comment76408_34547) and while that may apply to everyday conversation, it is not how journal editors approach their jobs. I'm just talking about published papers here. Nobody is flawless, but journal editors do not let "universal Bad Science English" all the way to press very often. So I disagree with your original comment, and haven't deviated from that position. My question is valid that's all
uhoh
<history><terminology><variable-star><betelgeuse>
When we say a variable star is "fainting" does it mean something more or different than "dimming" or "fading"?
uhoh
# When we say a variable star is "fainting" does it mean something more or different than "dimming" or "fading"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-12-31)

A comment below the question [Does the current “fainting” of Betelgeuse show any spectral trends that differ from it's normal variability?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/34545/7982) suggests that "dimming" would be a better term, but I have a hunch that the use of the term "fainting" in this context is more than just a choice of synonyms for decreasing in brightness.

A quick check in google scholar for "variable star fainting" returns many results that seem to use fainting in deliberate way.

**Question:** When we say a variable star is "fainting" does it mean more or different than "dimming" or "fading"?

"bonus points" for any history on the term; was it first used by someone speaking proper English rather than that horrible derivative they speak in the US? ;-)

---

If we don't get an authoritative answer here in Astronomy SE in a few days, I'll think about moving this to English SE or History of Science and Math SE.

In the mean time it would be great if people could refrain from:

1. suggesting it would be "better asked" elsewhere
2. posting speculative or low-quality answers, which will make it impossible for me to then move the question by myself

## *Thanks!*

**Tags:** history, terminology, variable-star, betelgeuse
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think right here on Astronomy is the best place to ask this question, even if it doesn't get a quick answer. The most likely reaction on [ELU.SE] (on which I'm relatively active) would be knee-jerk closure for lack of research, and a recommendation to refer it to the SE site most appropriate for the specialist usage of the word (i.e. here on Astronomy!). If it lingers here without an answer, why not offer a [bounty](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/help/bounty)?  
> **username_0**: @ChappoSaysSEDuddedMonica Thanks, yes I've had mostly good but mixed results in English SE with space word questions; [launch cadence](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/471552/217285),  [dumb mass](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/466998/217285), [Ephemerides](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/370655/217285),  [Nasa vs NASA](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/488580/217285),  [space jellyfish](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/492223/217285),  [dog-leg](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/387446/217285),  [very historic](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/490515/217285).  
> **username_0**: I also have some experience with bounties in [Space](https://space.stackexchange.com/users/12102/uhoh?tab=bounties&sort=offered) and [Astronomy](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/users/7982/uhoh?tab=bounties&sort=offered)  
> **username_0**: yay! Betelgeuse has its own tag now  
> **username_2**: The international language of science is bad English; most people who use it are not native speakers. Thus don't expect that every person uses the most appropriate word (which is even debatable among native speakers) for a thing when there are others which have similar meanings but wrong connotations or different main meanings and usages and use it for fringe or archaic meanings.  
> **username_0**: @planetmaker search results in the answer found 8 cases only, so it's quite rare. It seems most/all were published in English language journals which means *the reviewers and the editors of these journals* also allowed this usage. Presumably the editors of main stream, peer-reviewed astronomical journals were competent in English?  
> **username_2**: It's a presumption which often holds but not always. None of the involved people might be native speaker either.  
> **username_0**: @planetmaker journal editors have a job to do, presumably they do it well and their background doesn't matter.  
> **username_2**: And they all do it flawlessly?  
> **username_0**: @planetmaker you said [The international language of science is bad English...Thus don't expect that every person uses the most appropriate word...](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/34547/#comment76408_34547) and while that may apply to everyday conversation, it is not how journal editors approach their jobs. I'm just talking about published papers here. Nobody is flawless, but journal editors do not let "universal Bad Science English" all the way to press very often. So I disagree with your original comment, and haven't deviated from that position. My question is valid that's all  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2021-08-15. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

Saying a star is "fainting" is simply an error; the correct terminology is "dimming" or "fading". (I suspect it's a plausible mistake for non-native speakers if they know about the adjective "faint", which is common in astronomy -- why wouldn't "to faint" mean "to become fainter"? But it doesn't.)

You say

> A quick check in google scholar for "variable star fainting" returns
> many results that seem to use fainting in deliberate way.

but you don't say how you did the search, how you evaluated the results, and whether you checked for alternatives. Google searches are problematic because their numbers are unreliable estimates and because Google will normally return anything with one or more of the search terms (and will return hits for synonyms as well). It's true that if I just search for "variable star fainting" (*without* quote marks), I get "about 5,860 results". But if I replace "fainting" with "fading", I get "about 43,400 results", which already suggests "fading" is preferred over "fainting". If I put quotation marks around the phrase "variable star" *and* the word "fainting" (telling Google I want pages with both of those exact phrases), I get "about 25 results" with "fainting" (about six of which aren't actually from astronomy) and "about 2,440 results" with "fading" -- so the latter is about two orders of magnitude more common.

A better approach is to use the [Astrophysics Data System](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/), which is more comprehensive and allows separate searches of abstracts and full texts. Searches of abstracts for "fainting" produces 17 results (two of which are actually about the physiogical phenomenon for astronauts); a search for "fading" produces 3,191 results. ("Dimming" gets 1,545 results.) A full-text searches for the presence of both "variable star" and "fading" gets [1,898 results](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/filter_database_fq_database=AND&filter_database_fq_database=database%3A%22astronomy%22&fl=identifier%2C%5Bcitations%5D%2Cabstract%2Cauthor%2Corcid_pub%2Corcid_user%2Corcid_other%2Cbibcode%2Ccitation_count%2Ccomment%2Cdoi%2Cid%2Ckeyword%2Cpage%2Cproperty%2Cpub%2Cpub_raw%2Cpubdate%2Cpubnote%2Cread_count%2Ctitle%2Cvolume%2Clinks_data%2Cesources%2Cdata%2Ccitation_count_norm%2Cemail%2Cdoctype&fq=%7B!type%3Daqp%20v%3D%24fq_database%7D&fq_database=(database%3A%22astronomy%22)&q=%3Dfull%3A(%22variable%20star%22%20%22fading%22)&rows=25&sort=date%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc&start=0&p_=0); substituting "fainting" returns a grand total of [8 results](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/filter_database_fq_database=AND&filter_database_fq_database=database%3A%22astronomy%22&fl=identifier%2C%5Bcitations%5D%2Cabstract%2Cauthor%2Corcid_pub%2Corcid_user%2Corcid_other%2Cbibcode%2Ccitation_count%2Ccomment%2Cdoi%2Cid%2Ckeyword%2Cpage%2Cproperty%2Cpub%2Cpub_raw%2Cpubdate%2Cpubnote%2Cread_count%2Ctitle%2Cvolume%2Clinks_data%2Cesources%2Cdata%2Ccitation_count_norm%2Cemail%2Cdoctype&fq=%7B!type%3Daqp%20v%3D%24fq_database%7D&fq_database=(database%3A%22astronomy%22)&q=%3Dfull%3A(%22variable%20star%22%20%22fainting%22)&rows=25&sort=date%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc&start=0&p_=0).

Finally, I'll note that the follow-on Astronomers Telegram (#13365) that you mentioned in your original question puts "fainting" in scare quotes, suggesting an acknowledgment that the original usage in the first telegram (#13341) was an error.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: "...but you don't say how you did the search, how you evaluated the results, and whether you checked for alternatives" of course I don't; I've just done enough to justify asking the question. Now on to the question that's been asked: "When we say a variable star is "fainting" does it mean more or different than 'dimming' or 'fading'?" Is the answer "No, people don't use it that often, but when they do, yes that's what they mean"? or something else?  
> **username_3**: They mean exactly the same thing as "fading" or "dimming". It's not some special technical term with a unique meaning; it's just an error.  
> **username_0**: Excellent, thanks!  

---

