| Author |
Message |
Father Ignatius
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 9:41 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
"Serge Paccalin" <sp@mailclub.no.spam.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:f8imb50h57ym.dlg@canttouchthis-127.0.0.1...
| Quote: | Le mardi 10 mai 2005 à 19:33:16, Mike Lyle a écrit dans
alt.usage.english :
Announcing the discovery of a shoe from the late Iron Age in
Wellington, Somerset, the BBC radio news man has just said it was
"30
centimetres long". I call that a modernisation too far.
All shoes are one foot long.
|
I have been out with ladies whose shoes were not quite so long as that.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Father Ignatius
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 9:42 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
"R H Draney" <dadoctah@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:d5ri6v0rg0@drn.newsguy.com...
| Quote: | Skitt filted:
R H Draney wrote:
Lanarcam filted:
Rodney wrote:
[to someone who had written]
All shoes are one foot long.
Ahem! now what about a horse shoe?
How do you say one foot long in horse language?
By stamping the ground....
Anyway, what about shoes you deal blackjack from?...r
Aren't they about a foot long?
You may be thinking of hot dogs....r
|
No, that'd be a cat on a hot tin roof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 1:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
Mike Lyle spake thusly:
| Quote: | Wood Avens wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2005 18:33:16 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Announcing the discovery of a shoe from the late Iron Age in
Wellington, Somerset, the BBC radio news man has just said it was
"30 centimetres long". I call that a modernisation too far.
Be fair - slightly later in the report he did say it was about a
foot long. You want him to express it in fractions of ells or
perches or cubits?
( i very nearly left out the "long", but as far as I know no Iron
Age foot was enclosed.)
I missed the bit where he went all pre-Imperial. No, no foot
included: he said it was like a squashed ... damn, I can't remember
what: it's not age, I've always been like this.
|
"sirloin steak".
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 4:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
the Omrud wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Lyle spake thusly:
Wood Avens wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2005 18:33:16 +0100, "Mike Lyle"
mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Announcing the discovery of a shoe from the late Iron Age in
Wellington, Somerset, the BBC radio news man has just said it
was
"30 centimetres long". I call that a modernisation too far.
Be fair - slightly later in the report he did say it was about a
foot long. You want him to express it in fractions of ells or
perches or cubits?
( i very nearly left out the "long", but as far as I know no Iron
Age foot was enclosed.)
I missed the bit where he went all pre-Imperial. No, no foot
included: he said it was like a squashed ... damn, I can't
remember
what: it's not age, I've always been like this.
"sirloin steak".
|
Ah, yes. Thank you.
Sorry, what did you say?
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 4:32 pm
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
Jason Kirk wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 10 May 2005 18:33:16 +0100, Mike Lyle wrote:
Announcing the discovery of a shoe from the late Iron Age in
Wellington, Somerset, the BBC radio news man has just said it was
"30
centimetres long". I call that a modernisation too far.
I think I can understand from a stylistic view they choose cm. To
say
that it was "a foot long" sounds a little odd in this context as
you
automatically expect, unless you're a clown, that the shoe is as
long
as the foot.
|
I wasn't being that serious. But two points: most people in Br still
think in terms of Imperial measures of length; and, even at
journalism speed, the piece could have been written to make the foot
length an additional...er...dimension of the story without
unintentional incongruity.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 5:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005, Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | Jason Kirk wrote:
I think I can understand from a stylistic view they choose cm. To
say that it was "a foot long" sounds a little odd in this context as
you automatically expect, unless you're a clown, that the shoe is as
long as the foot.
I wasn't being that serious. But two points: most people in Br still
think in terms of Imperial measures of length; and, even at
journalism speed, the piece could have been written to make the foot
length an additional...er...dimension of the story without
unintentional incongruity.
|
Is it still the case that most people in Br think in terms of Imperial
measures for lengths measured in feet and inches? Metric measures have
been taught for so long in schools now that I doubt many people under
40 think in feet and inches. DIY stores and the like do everything in
metric these days. I suspect we're reaching the point where the cm
measurement would be at least as comfortable for most people as the ft
measurement.
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 6:32 pm
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
"Matthew Huntbach" <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0505111250001.10447@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk...
| Quote: | On Wed, 11 May 2005, Mike Lyle wrote:
Jason Kirk wrote:
I think I can understand from a stylistic view they choose cm. To
say that it was "a foot long" sounds a little odd in this context as
you automatically expect, unless you're a clown, that the shoe is as
long as the foot.
I wasn't being that serious. But two points: most people in Br still
think in terms of Imperial measures of length; and, even at
journalism speed, the piece could have been written to make the foot
length an additional...er...dimension of the story without
unintentional incongruity.
Is it still the case that most people in Br think in terms of Imperial
measures for lengths measured in feet and inches? Metric measures have
been taught for so long in schools now that I doubt many people under
40 think in feet and inches. DIY stores and the like do everything in
metric these days. I suspect we're reaching the point where the cm
measurement would be at least as comfortable for most people as the ft
measurement.
|
One would think so, but domestic or personal measurements are still often
Imperial: children's heights, for instance, and, if we extend the discussion
to other measures, newborn babies' weights, traditional family recipes,
gardening things such as planting depths . . . Approximations seem usually
to be expressed in the old way (someone is six foot tall and weighs 13
stone), even if an exact figure for formal purposes may be metric; and
children use this "approximate" Imperial quite freely. (Mentioning "stone"
reminds me that for us Brits US measures are quite as awkward as metric: I
don't think many of us know whether, say, 170 lbs is excessively heavy for
an adult man or just normal, or what a cup of flour is by weight.)
I suppose the traditions will gradually fade, but we're not there yet.
Perhaps the last to go will be miles, both on signposts and as "mph" on
speedometers. The hardware will last for years yet.
Alan Jones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 6:51 pm
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | Is it still the case that most people in Br think in terms of
Imperial
measures for lengths measured in feet and inches? Metric measures
have
been taught for so long in schools now that I doubt many people
under
40 think in feet and inches. DIY stores and the like do everything
in
metric these days. I suspect we're reaching the point where the cm
measurement would be at least as comfortable for most people as the
ft
measurement.
|
Quite possibly; but I don't think I've ever heard anybody here quote
his height (or weight) in metric. Certainly road distances are always
expressed in miles or yards, clothes in inches. You must be right
about the DIY realm. I don't know how one would find out what
people's internalised system is.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Linz
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 9:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
"Matthew Huntbach" <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0505111250001.10447@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk...
| Quote: | Is it still the case that most people in Br think in terms of
Imperial measures for lengths measured in feet and inches? Metric
measures have been taught for so long in schools now that I doubt
many people under 40 think in feet and inches. DIY stores and the
like do everything in metric these days. I suspect we're reaching
the point where the cm measurement would be at least as comfortable
for most people as the ft measurement.
|
I am under 40 (just). I instinctively use imperial for distances but
can use cm - but I can't work in km. Weights I'm happy with metric and
imperial although babies I still 'understand' better in imperial. Most
of my cooking is metric, but I measure pasta in oz. Temperature is
definitely C rather than F.
Of course, I drink in pints. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Heindl
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 5:09 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Is it still the case that most people in Br think in terms of
Imperial measures for lengths measured in feet and inches? Metric
measures have been taught for so long in schools now that I doubt
many people under 40 think in feet and inches. DIY stores and the
like do everything in metric these days. I suspect we're reaching
the point where the cm measurement would be at least as
comfortable for most people as the ft measurement.
|
Do the metric designations on lumber give the actual dimensions, or are
they as silly as the US inch designations? In the US, a so-called 2-
by-4 is actually 1-5/8" x 3-1/2", if memory serves. A 1-by-2 is 3/4 x
1-1/2. But "five-quarter" boards really are 1-1/4" thick, just to
confuse things.
--
Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dick Chambers
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 5:41 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach wrote
| Quote: | Mike Lyle wrote:
I wasn't being that serious. But two points: most people in Br still
think in terms of Imperial measures of length; and, even at
journalism speed, the piece could have been written to make the foot
length an additional...er...dimension of the story without
unintentional incongruity.
Is it still the case that most people in Br think in terms of Imperial
measures for lengths measured in feet and inches? Metric measures have
been taught for so long in schools now that I doubt many people under
40 think in feet and inches. DIY stores and the like do everything in
metric these days. I suspect we're reaching the point where the cm
measurement would be at least as comfortable for most people as the ft
measurement.
|
You can test yourself. Without getting a calculator out, and without doing
mental arithmetic, answer the following:-
1. What is your height in metres and centimetres? Your wife's/husband's
height?
2. Your weight, in kg? Her/his weight?
3. Your normal body temperature in degrees Celsius?
4. How much fish (cod, haddock, or such like), in grams, would you buy for
a meal for two people?
5. What minimum temperature of a swimming pool (or the sea) would you
expect before you agree to go swimming? (degrees Celsius).
6. The weight, in grams, of a standard pack of butter?
7. How many litres of fuel per 100km does your car use?
8. What tyre pressure is required for your car? In what metric units is
this pressure measured?
9. The weight (kg) of a fully packed suitcase that you take with you on
the aeroplane when you go abroad for a 10-day holiday?
10. The total area of your property (i.e. floor area of your house, plus
area of your garden), in hectares? If 1 hectare is X metres by X metres,
what is the value of X?
11. The distance (km) from your house to the city centre.
12. The circumference of the earth in km?
Richard Chambers Leeds UK. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R H Draney
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 6:21 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
Dick Chambers filted:
| Quote: |
You can test yourself. Without getting a calculator out, and without doing
mental arithmetic, answer the following:-
1. What is your height in metres and centimetres? Your wife's/husband's
height?
|
I can see I'm probably not going to do better than fifty percent on this test
unless I can dig up a wife or husband in the immediate future....
More seriously, my own height is definitely below 200 cm, and definitely above
180...more precisely than that I cannot say....
| Quote: | 2. Your weight, in kg? Her/his weight?
|
I don't even know what it is in real units, but I'm sure it's more than it
should be....
| Quote: | 3. Your normal body temperature in degrees Celsius?
|
Thirty-seven...temperatures I'm good at....
| Quote: | 4. How much fish (cod, haddock, or such like), in grams, would you buy for
a meal for two people?
|
None...if I'm going to the trouble of cooking fish, we're having salmon or
swordfish...if I buy cod or haddock, it comes in sticks, and I'd buy one box....
| Quote: | 5. What minimum temperature of a swimming pool (or the sea) would you
expect before you agree to go swimming? (degrees Celsius).
|
Wouldn't go near it unless it were over 25...bear in mind I live in Phoenix,
where the "cold" water tap often runs close to body temperature....
| Quote: | 6. The weight, in grams, of a standard pack of butter?
|
Three hundred or so...I usually buy either two little ones or one medium-sized
one....
| Quote: | 7. How many litres of fuel per 100km does your car use?
|
Don't know...I fill it up once a week....
| Quote: | 8. What tyre pressure is required for your car? In what metric units is
this pressure measured?
|
Again, this is something I don't even know in the units this country expects me
to think in...SI uses something like "kilopascals", innit?...
| Quote: | 9. The weight (kg) of a fully packed suitcase that you take with you on
the aeroplane when you go abroad for a 10-day holiday?
|
I've never been more than twenty miles (!) outside the boundaries of the US, so
I don't really know what travel(l)ing "abroad" would require....
| Quote: | 10. The total area of your property (i.e. floor area of your house, plus
area of your garden), in hectares? If 1 hectare is X metres by X metres,
what is the value of X?
|
The only number I can associate with the area of my property is what was listed
by the real estate agent when I bought it back in 1988: 1496 square feet...I've
never been able to figure out whether that includes the space inside the walls,
the area of the staircase, or even the garden (represented here by a patio, or
"feral cat kindergarten" as it's currently being used)....
| Quote: | 11. The distance (km) from your house to the city centre.
|
I assume "city centre" has some meaning other than the strictly geodesic
here...I once managed to find six different places that could lay legitimate
claim to being the "center" of Phoenix...I don't know the distance to any of
them in terms other than the approximate time it'd take me to drive there....
| Quote: | 12. The circumference of the earth in km?
|
That's supposed to be the gimme, right?...it's four times ten to some power, by
definition....r |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aokay (David G. Bryce)
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 7:11 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:09:35 GMT, Ray Heindl
<vortren-newsx@yaxhoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
Is it still the case that most people in Br think in terms of
Imperial measures for lengths measured in feet and inches? Metric
measures have been taught for so long in schools now that I doubt
many people under 40 think in feet and inches. DIY stores and the
like do everything in metric these days. I suspect we're reaching
the point where the cm measurement would be at least as
comfortable for most people as the ft measurement.
Do the metric designations on lumber give the actual dimensions, or are
they as silly as the US inch designations? In the US, a so-called 2-
by-4 is actually 1-5/8" x 3-1/2", if memory serves. A 1-by-2 is 3/4 x
1-1/2. But "five-quarter" boards really are 1-1/4" thick, just to
confuse things.
|
Not so fast my man. Your two by four starts out as a real 2" x 4"
but then it is planed. (Please no one tell me that it starts out as
a tree.) I like rough cut lumber (and use it when I can get it)
but most people don't like it or they have no choice because
finished stock is all that the lumber yards sell.
I would guess that European lumber is sold the same way. Is a 5 x
10 (or whatever it is called) really 5 x 10?
BTW, Canada is officially metric but lumber is still cut and sold
the old way. Construction is construction.
aok |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross Howard
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 1:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
On 12 May 2005 17:21:09 -0700, R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>
wrought:
| Quote: | Dick Chambers filted:
12. The circumference of the earth in km?
That's supposed to be the gimme, right?...it's four times ten to some power, by
definition....r
|
Among many other things I didn't know,(*) I read only last night in
the excellent *E=mc2* (by David Somethinggreeksounding) that a
centimetre is supposed to be some teeny-weeny base-10 fraction of the
length of the quadrant of the Paris meridian (in other words, a line
that runs over the Earth's surface from the equator, through Paris, to
the North Pole). Since we now know that the Earth is squashed at the
poles, this suggests either that centimetres are a bit longer than
they really should be or that the circumference of the earth is
actually four times ten to some power plus a bit extra.
(* For instance, Marat the flaky -- literally -- French revolutionary
had in an earlier life been Marat the flaky -- figuratively -- Swiss
inventor.)
--
Ross Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 4:18 pm
Post subject: The town centre (was: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe) |
|
|
On 12 May 2005 17:21:09 -0700, R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | Dick Chambers filted:
11. The distance (km) from your house to the city centre.
I assume "city centre" has some meaning other than the strictly geodesic
here...I once managed to find six different places that could lay legitimate
claim to being the "center" of Phoenix...I don't know the distance to any of
them in terms other than the approximate time it'd take me to drive there....
|
I think it is an interesting question. Not all towns or cities have a
city centre, I think we can agree; LA stands out as a shining example
of one that doesn't.
Are towns with a town centre only some of those founded before 1800
(I'm guessing on the year), it being where the town square is? I'm
specifically thinking of some of the old towns in New England and some
of the very old towns in Europe. How many cities have what could be
called a city centre? Most don't, I'd say, unless one claims that
where city hall or the main court house is located defines where the
city centre is.
Where is a city's centre and must a city have one?
--
Charles Riggs
There are no accented letters in my email address |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in