 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In the metric system it's very common to use the superscript power
notation for squared and cubed units of length, such as "m^2"
(m superscript 2, damn the limitations of ascii...) for square meters
and "m^3" for cubic meters.
How about imperial units. Can you write "square feet" as "ft^2" or
something like that?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> How about imperial units. Can you write "square feet" as "ft^2" or
> something like that?
Yes.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp schrieb:
> In the metric system it's very common to use the superscript power
> notation for squared and cubed units of length, such as "m^2"
> (m superscript 2, damn the limitations of ascii...) for square meters
> and "m^3" for cubic meters.
>
> How about imperial units. Can you write "square feet" as "ft^2" or
> something like that?
imperial units are not SI units and therefore wrong anyway, so you can
do with them whatever you like :-P
(*ducks & runs*)
(BTW, those "limitations of ASCII" work pretty neat in T'bird :-))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:46:02 -0500, Warp wrote:
> In the metric system it's very common to use the superscript power
> notation for squared and cubed units of length, such as "m^2" (m
> superscript 2, damn the limitations of ascii...) for square meters and
> "m^3" for cubic meters.
>
> How about imperial units. Can you write "square feet" as "ft^2" or
> something like that?
Sure, you can. I find "Square feet" typically is written "sq. ft."
though (or some variation like that)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tag povrayorg> a écrit dans le message de news:
4af4d15a@news.povray.org...
> In the metric system it's very common to use the superscript power
> notation for squared and cubed units of length, such as "m^2"
> (m superscript 2, damn the limitations of ascii...) for square meters
> and "m^3" for cubic meters.
>
> How about imperial units. Can you write "square feet" as "ft^2" or
> something like that?
>
> --
> - Warp
Of course you can
and you can try converting hPa to psi by head with a hangover by a misty
morning in a gas station of Kyle of Lochalsh.
Duh!
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
While we are at this, where does cid come from? Cubic Inch...Dimensions?
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen schrieb:
> While we are at this, where does cid come from? Cubic Inch...Dimensions?
'pedia is your friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CID
For the impatient: It's "... Displacement".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4af4d15a@news.povray.org...
> In the metric system it's very common to use the superscript power
> notation for squared and cubed units of length, such as "m^2"
> (m superscript 2, damn the limitations of ascii...) for square meters
> and "m^3" for cubic meters.
>
> How about imperial units. Can you write "square feet" as "ft^2" or
> something like that?
>
I don't ever recall seeing it written that way, but yes, it's common for
metric units. I often see "sq. ft.", "sqft", and "cu. ft." But I don't
ever remember seeing ft^2 (superscript).
I actually wonder if that would confuse.
e.g.
"The area is about 100 feet square"
"100 square feet?"
"No, that would be 10,000 square feet."
I just wonder if writing it as "100 ft^2" could possibly be (mis)interpreted
that way.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Another question:
Is there a reason that 1 gallon is exactly 231 cubic inches? Was a gallon
first defined in terms of cubic inches? (And why such an arbitrary number
as 231?)
Why no such round number with cubic feet? 1 gallon = 0.133680556 cubic feet.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp schrieb:
> Another question:
>
> Is there a reason that 1 gallon is exactly 231 cubic inches? Was a gallon
> first defined in terms of cubic inches? (And why such an arbitrary number
> as 231?)
>
> Why no such round number with cubic feet? 1 gallon = 0.133680556 cubic feet.
231 cubic inch, actually.
"The wine gallon, which some sources relate to the volume occupied by
eight medieval merchant pounds of wine, was at one time defined as the
volume of a cylinder six inches deep and seven inches in diameter, i.e.
6 * (3+1/2)2 * pi ~= 230.90706 cu in. It had been redefined during the
reign of Queen Anne, in 1706, as 231 in^3 exactly (3 * 7 * 11 in), which
is the result of the earlier definition with pi approximated to 22/7."
The wine gallon is the one adopted by the U.S. as "the" gallon. Note
that Brits and Canadians went for the "imperial gallon" instead.
(WIYF)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Warp schrieb:
> > Another question:
> >
> > Is there a reason that 1 gallon is exactly 231 cubic inches? Was a gallon
> > first defined in terms of cubic inches? (And why such an arbitrary number
> > as 231?)
> >
> > Why no such round number with cubic feet? 1 gallon = 0.133680556 cubic feet.
> 231 cubic inch, actually.
Isn't that what I said? Or are you saying that "cubic inches" is incorrect
and should instead be "cubic inch"?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp schrieb:
>>> Is there a reason that 1 gallon is exactly 231 cubic inches? Was a gallon
>>> first defined in terms of cubic inches? (And why such an arbitrary number
>>> as 231?)
>>>
>>> Why no such round number with cubic feet? 1 gallon = 0.133680556 cubic feet.
>
>> 231 cubic inch, actually.
>
> Isn't that what I said? Or are you saying that "cubic inches" is incorrect
> and should instead be "cubic inch"?
No, I just shot first and read later :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> I don't ever recall seeing it written that way, but yes, it's common for
> metric units. I often see "sq. ft.", "sqft", and "cu. ft." But I don't
> ever remember seeing ft^2 (superscript).
>
> I actually wonder if that would confuse.
> e.g.
> "The area is about 100 feet square"
> "100 square feet?"
> "No, that would be 10,000 square feet."
>
> I just wonder if writing it as "100 ft^2" could possibly be (mis)interpreted
> that way.
>
>
Yes, that was what I was taught all those years ago 100 ft^2 = 10000 sq ft.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Another question:
>
> Is there a reason that 1 gallon is exactly 231 cubic inches? Was a gallon
> first defined in terms of cubic inches? (And why such an arbitrary number
> as 231?)
>
> Why no such round number with cubic feet? 1 gallon = 0.133680556 cubic feet.
>
Remembering that I use imperial measures. One gallon of water was
defined as weighing 10 lb of water at STP (Standard Temperature and
Pressure).
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen schrieb:
>> I just wonder if writing it as "100 ft^2" could possibly be
>> (mis)interpreted that way.
>>
> Yes, that was what I was taught all those years ago 100 ft^2 = 10000 sq ft.
Makes no sense to me; look:
u = 1 ft
100 u^2 = ?
With the power operation defined as binding stronger by convention,
that's obviously = 100 sq ft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Stephen schrieb:
>
>>> I just wonder if writing it as "100 ft^2" could possibly be
>>> (mis)interpreted that way.
>>>
>> Yes, that was what I was taught all those years ago 100 ft^2 = 10000
>> sq ft.
>
> Makes no sense to me; look:
>
> u = 1 ft
> 100 u^2 = ?
>
> With the power operation defined as binding stronger by convention,
> that's obviously = 100 sq ft.
That is true if u = (1 ft) but since the term “feet squared” is (was) a
very common term the convention was to write 100 sq ft = 10 ft squared
or 10 ft ^2.
Don’t expect rationality in a system that was not rationalised ;)
Just think that 16 oz = 1 lb but 1 pint = 20 fluid ounces. Unless you
are American then 1 pint = 16 fluid ounces.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jeremy \"UncleHoot\" Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> wrote:
>
> I just wonder if writing it as "100 ft^2" could possibly be (mis)interpreted
> that way.
In verbal conversation with non-engineers, who knows. In engineering notation,
no. I'm old enough to have had my co-op (intern) experience with a firm that
worked and thought exclusively in Imperial Units (I think back then they were so
arrogant as to call them Engineering Units). I was schooled exclusively in SI in
college. I think once I was asked to perform an engineering calculation, and
made a mistake when I insisted on converting to SI first and then back to
British. That one group didn't ask me again.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> How about imperial units. Can you write "square feet" as "ft^2" or
> something like that?
In a similar question, where you are, is "ten square meters" the same as
"ten meters square"?
--
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:
> > How about imperial units. Can you write "square feet" as "ft^2" or
> > something like that?
> In a similar question, where you are, is "ten square meters" the same as
> "ten meters square"?
Never heard of anyone using "ten meters square". Doesn't even make much
sense.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> How about imperial units. Can you write "square feet" as "ft^2" or
>>> something like that?
>
>> In a similar question, where you are, is "ten square meters" the same as
>> "ten meters square"?
>
> Never heard of anyone using "ten meters square". Doesn't even make much
> sense.
>
Sure it does. Ten square metres is an area of two metres by five metres,
an area ten metres square is ten by ten = 100 m^2
John
--
Cogito sum,|| wbu### [at] tznvypbz (rot'ed) || GPG Key Fingerprint:
ergo sum, || || 0D9BCF4CF1B71CA2F5F7
cogito || || BFBBCBC34EDEAEFCE453
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John <rea### [at] mysig> wrote:
> Sure it does. Ten square metres is an area of two metres by five metres,
> an area ten metres square is ten by ten = 100 m^2
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Doctor John <rea### [at] mysig> wrote:
>> Sure it does. Ten square metres is an area of two metres by five metres,
>> an area ten metres square is ten by ten = 100 m^2
>
> 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.
>
10 meters square makes perfect sense, if you are used to standard (or
British) English. The “d” is assumed.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Doctor John <rea### [at] mysig> wrote:
> >> Sure it does. Ten square metres is an area of two metres by five metres,
> >> an area ten metres square is ten by ten = 100 m^2
> >
> > 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.
> >
> 10 meters square makes perfect sense, if you are used to standard (or
> British) English. The ???d??? is assumed.
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").
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
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.
It works best with almost-square surfaces being measured. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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...
I think I hear it more often when it's in the denominator
(concentration, etc).
--
Engineers: often wrong, seldom in doubt.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/09/09 15:19, Warp wrote:
> here. If anything, that would cause confusion (especially if the meaning is
> intended to be something different than "square meters").
Wherever I've heard it, it means the same thing as square meters.
Thinking about it now, I hear it more often for centimeters.
--
Engineers: often wrong, seldom in doubt.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
> It works best with almost-square surfaces being measured. :-)
Is that *really* an expression people use regularly? Because I have never
heard or read that even in English.
Of course such an expression is quite incorrect, technically speaking.
Squares cannot be measured in feet or meters. The *sides* of the squares can.
The expression which *is* usually used is "there room is a ten-by-ten
feet/meters square".
Of course in this case the expression is talking about a geometrical shape
rather than a mathematical expression.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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)?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Is that *really* an expression people use regularly? Because I have never
> heard or read that even in English.
It's not unusual, really. Yes, it is confusing.
Perhaps you haven't heard it because you're usually speaking about meters
and the people you most talk with usually speak about meters, or at least
know that people don't use the same expression with meters?
Or maybe it's just something I picked up from where I grew up, or from older
people, and perhaps it's not as common as I think.
> Of course such an expression is quite incorrect, technically speaking.
> Squares cannot be measured in feet or meters. The *sides* of the squares can.
Yes. That's what the expression means. "Ten feet square" or "ten feet on a
side" mean the same thing.
> The expression which *is* usually used is "there room is a ten-by-ten
> feet/meters square".
That's the same thing, only you leave out the second "by ten" :-)
I usually hear it as "miles square" or "feet square". Rarely other units
like inches or anything, and it usually implies only a very rough
measurement. "Would you believe his farm is four miles square?"
--
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:
> "Would you believe his farm is four miles square?"
Assuming that the farm is not a perfect square, how should one even
interpret that?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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 ;)
So since you didn’t … tough luck.
--
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 ;)
> So since you didn’t … tough luck.
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 ;)
>> So since you didn’t … tough luck.
>
> 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.
>
Funny how the native English speakers don’t agree.
> 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.)
>
I was going to say this near the beginning of the thread but didn’t. The
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
