>>>>> 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

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> 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.

  All for the sake of saving a "by 10"...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
>   All for the sake of saving a "by 10"...
> 
Now if the Finns had been invaders as well as the Danes, Norwegians, 
Angles, Saxons, Jutes, French, Romans and Spanish then you would have 
had a say in our language ;)



-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:

>> 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.
> 
>   All for the sake of saving a "by 10"...

In the IT world, that would be called "data compression" and highly 
praised :-P

(It's even lossless, actually.)

Post a reply to this message

Stephen schrieb:

> Now if the Finns had been invaders as well as the Danes, Norwegians, 
> Angles, Saxons, Jutes, French, Romans and Spanish then you would have 
> had a say in our language ;)


LOL!

But when did the Spanish pay a vidit?

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Stephen schrieb:
> 
>> Now if the Finns had been invaders as well as the Danes, Norwegians, 
>> Angles, Saxons, Jutes, French, Romans and Spanish then you would have 
>> had a say in our language ;)

> 
> LOL!
> 
> But when did the Spanish pay a vidit?

In 1588 the Spanish tried to invade England but a storm scattered and 
sank some of the armada. A few of the Spanish settled in the Hebrides.
But I really meant the Celts who came from Galicia (Northwest Spain) and 
Gaul.


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>  All for the sake of saving a "by 10"...

Language, especially spoken, works like that a lot - things are dropped when 
they are not needed.  Another common thing is to drop the units entirely if 
they are not necessary, this happens *a lot*.  Sometimes units are even 
shortened to scientifically incorrect ones (eg I have heard "a speed limit 
of 60 miles") but the point is that everyone understands what is meant, when 
you are talking to friends casually you are not at a scientific conference - 
and you'll likely be labeled as a jerk if you start saying things like "you 
mean miles *per hour*?" in the conversation.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >  All for the sake of saving a "by 10"...

> Language, especially spoken, works like that a lot - things are dropped when 
> they are not needed.

  Well, that was my point: In this case it *is* needed because leaving it
out causes confusion.

  One could argue that it's a well-established expression and thus shouldn't
cause confusion, but if I have never heard or read such an expression in my
entire life until now, I wouldn't say it's well-established. (Granted, it
might be well-established at a local level at some places, but one should
understand that not everybody is from that same place.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>>>  All for the sake of saving a "by 10"...
> 
>> Language, especially spoken, works like that a lot - things are dropped when 
>> they are not needed.
> 
>   Well, that was my point: In this case it *is* needed because leaving it
> out causes confusion.
> 



>   One could argue that it's a well-established expression and thus shouldn't
> cause confusion, but if I have never heard or read such an expression in my
> entire life until now, I wouldn't say it's well-established. (Granted, it
> might be well-established at a local level at some places, but one should
> understand that not everybody is from that same place.)
> 



word order is sometimes quite important in English.


It is square.
It is 10m square.
It is (ten meters) square.
It is ten meters square.


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:

>> Language, especially spoken, works like that a lot - things are dropped when 
>> they are not needed.
> 
>   Well, that was my point: In this case it *is* needed because leaving it
> out causes confusion.
> 
>   One could argue that it's a well-established expression and thus shouldn't
> cause confusion, but if I have never heard or read such an expression in my
> entire life until now, I wouldn't say it's well-established. (Granted, it
> might be well-established at a local level at some places, but one should
> understand that not everybody is from that same place.)

Spoken languages are developed for (and usually by) people natively 
speaking them, not for making it easy to understand for the rest of the 
whole wide world.

Esperanto is an exception to that.

We're not talking about a computer language, mind you.

Post a reply to this message