Warp schrieb:

>   Even so, "makes perfect sense" and "is commonly used" are two different
> things. I don't know how it's in other countries, but I have never heard
> anyone using anything similar to "meters square" (instead of "square meters")
> here. If anything, that would cause confusion (especially if the meaning is
> intended to be something different than "square meters").

Well, you're living in... what was the name of the country again? Finland?

Not exactly on the lists of countries with a lot of native English 
speakers, is it?


Leaving that aside, I have heard people using such expressions before, 
and yes, it caused confusion to me. And no, they apparently did /not/ 
refer to square meters, but really some distance square[d].

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:

>> If you say "the room is ten feet square", you're saying the room is a square 
>> ten feet on a side. Hence, 100 square feet.
> 
>   Of course such an expression is quite incorrect, technically speaking.
> Squares cannot be measured in feet or meters. The *sides* of the squares can.

It is only incorrect if you're in nitpicking mode and the speaker didn't 
explicitly define the expression.

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> "Would you believe his farm is four miles square?"
> 
>   Assuming that the farm is not a perfect square, how should one even
> interpret that?

"Would you believe his farm has the property of having an area equal to 
x square, where x is a distance of four miles?"

Post a reply to this message

On 11/09/09 17:00, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>> On 11/09/09 13:37, Warp wrote:
>>>     Where did the 100 come from? And wouldn't that be "ten metres squared"?
>>> Even then, I still haven't heard anyone use such expression.
>
>>          I hear it often. It should be squared, but that extra d sound is too
>> much effort. Don't know if that's just an American thing...
>
>    Are you sure you are not confusing it with the expression "10-by-10 square"
> (which is more correct anyways)?

	No.

	I think I misunderstood the discussion. I meant I often hear 10 m^2 
referred to as 10 meters square (has nothing to do with the shape).

-- 
Engineers: often wrong, seldom in doubt.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> "Would you believe his farm is four miles square?"
> 
>   Assuming that the farm is not a perfect square, how should one even
> interpret that?

It means that if you're on one side of the farm, you need to drive about 
four miles to get to the other side.  (Probably approximately true 
regardless of which side of the farm you're on.)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> "Would you believe his farm is four miles square?"
> > 
> >   Assuming that the farm is not a perfect square, how should one even
> > interpret that?

> It means that if you're on one side of the farm, you need to drive about 
> four miles to get to the other side.  (Probably approximately true 
> regardless of which side of the farm you're on.)

  Isn't land measured in acres anyways?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Warp schrieb:

> >> If you say "the room is ten feet square", you're saying the room is a square 
> >> ten feet on a side. Hence, 100 square feet.
> > 
> >   Of course such an expression is quite incorrect, technically speaking.
> > Squares cannot be measured in feet or meters. The *sides* of the squares can.

> It is only incorrect if you're in nitpicking mode and the speaker didn't 
> explicitly define the expression.

  It's not nitpicking if the expression cannot be easily understood.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:

>>>> If you say "the room is ten feet square", you're saying the room is a square 
>>>> ten feet on a side. Hence, 100 square feet.
>>>   Of course such an expression is quite incorrect, technically speaking.
>>> Squares cannot be measured in feet or meters. The *sides* of the squares can.
> 
>> It is only incorrect if you're in nitpicking mode and the speaker didn't 
>> explicitly define the expression.
> 
>   It's not nitpicking if the expression cannot be easily understood.

Maybe it can pretty well be understood in areas where the language is 
spoken natively?

It seems to me that you're trying to prove that a language is incorrect, 
while a language never is. It can be confusing, ambiguous, or whatever, 
but never /incorrect/; if there's anything incorrect about a language, 
it's always individual persons' /use/ of that language.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> "Would you believe his farm is four miles square?"
>>>   Assuming that the farm is not a perfect square, how should one even
>>> interpret that?
> 
>> It means that if you're on one side of the farm, you need to drive about 
>> four miles to get to the other side.  (Probably approximately true 
>> regardless of which side of the farm you're on.)
> 
>   Isn't land measured in acres anyways?

Generally around here, yes. Most people don't have a good feeling for how 
big an acre is. Most of the single-family homes have maybe 1/2 acre or less 
of land. The multi-million-dollar estates are only 2 or 3 acres generally, 
at least anywhere near an actual city. Farmers and developers will talk 
about acres. Other folks who (say) fix cars for a living, or do accounting, 
will talk about miles, as it's easier for them to visualize.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

>>>>> If you say "the room is ten feet square", you're saying the room is a 
>>>>> square ten feet on a side. Hence, 100 square feet.
>>>>   Of course such an expression is quite incorrect, technically 
>>>> speaking.
>>>> Squares cannot be measured in feet or meters. The *sides* of the 
>>>> squares can.
>>
>>> It is only incorrect if you're in nitpicking mode and the speaker didn't 
>>> explicitly define the expression.
>>
>>   It's not nitpicking if the expression cannot be easily understood.
>
> Maybe it can pretty well be understood in areas where the language is 
> spoken natively?

In the UK at least, I think "10 feet square" would be universally understood 
by everyone to mean a square shaped area with sides of length 10 feet. 
Doing a quick google.co.uk of "feet square" reveals this to be the case.  It 
might not be scientifically correct, but everyone where I come from 
understands it like that.

Post a reply to this message