I'm trying to find information about the grammatical correctness of interchanging lighter and brighter in the sense of:
- I turned on the lamp and the room became lighter.
- I turned on the lamp and the room became brighter.
I think that 1 is wrong, but I can't find information backing that up. Could anyone explain why, especially as some dictionaries may list light and bright as synonyms (ex: Dictionary.com (def 24), citing Random House)?
I think I can narrow my question sufficiently, especially per my comments below. I believe using the term lighter to refer to levels of light, such as in the first phrase, is incorrect as as lighter appears to mean paler, while brighter means more vivid, intense, or luminous; however the two meanings while similar, do not appear to overlap. I am try to get confirmation/refutation of this.
For example, brightness and lightness appear to refer to two separate, but somewhat related, properties of perception: brightness to radiance or luminosity, and lightness to value of tone. (Compare: bright red to light red)
Finally, and the primary basis of this question, is a reference from the OED:
a. Bright, shining, luminous. Of a fire: Burning brightly. Phrase, on (of, in) a light fire : in a blaze (very common in 16–18th c.). Obs.
["light, adj.2." OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2014. Web. 30 October 2014.]
The key here being the "obsolete." The other two variants pertaining to the same topic - one an adjective and the other an adverb - are likewise obsolete.
For illustration, consider the two additional example sentences:
- The lamp is too light.
- The lamp is too bright.
Thus, I suppose, the question worded distinctly would be: Is the first sentence incorrect? If not[/so], is it colloquially and/or grammatically [in]correct?