Ouch! After I'd posted that, I did wonder if maybe I should have done some homework before sticking my neck out. Looking at the way it's used contemporaneously in other contexts, "normalised" means essentially the same as "standardised", and suggests to me some kind of canonical form, and that's the meaning I try to reserve for it. "Perpendicular" or "cotangent" strike me as much more suggestive terms for surface normal, however venerable the usage. One of my pet hates as a student was the use of the word "series" for an infinite sum. Rather to my surprise, that does seem to be dying out, in spite of the fact that there doesn't seem to be any confusing competition with another meaning. Fred Lunnon On 3/18/06, Phil Carmody <thefatphil@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
What issue do you have with vectors being normal to a surface?
That term is not just entirely justifiable, but I'd contend that it's the single best justified use of the term out of the three you give. The OED dates that usage back to 1650. No other use of the word as an adjective has a longer history.
Phil