My only issue was concerned with the case in which the decimal point is
expressed (as "point") in the spoken value. There, you and I obviously
agree.
We obviously agree, too, on those usages where the word "point" is not
used.
One member of the list criticized me, privately, for "correcting" Dennis. I
would rather regard my message as one that simply used Dennis's message as
a launching pad to express one of my pet peeves regarding everyday usage.
Saying "point ten" for 0.10 must be confusing for children learning decimal
arithmetic for the first time. It certainly sounds as if it's bigger than
"point nine."
Bill Potts, CMS
San Jose, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Gregory Peterson
> Sent: 2000, October 27 12:02
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:8822] RE: Tape layouts
>
>
> I usually give my height as "a metre seventy-three" or "one
> seventy-three centimetres"
> I suspect the former comes from hearing heights given as "five
> foot nine", or "six foot four" and the latter from my primary
> school education.
>
> I would say "365 cm" as "three sixty five centimetres" and 3.65
> m as "three metres sixty five" casually and "three point six
> five metres" professionally.
> I would say "3650 mm" as "thirty-six fifty millimetres" again
> defaulting to the use of decimetres by counting in hundreds beyond 1000.
>
> greg
>
>
> >>> "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2000-10-26 19:03:36 >>>
> Dennis Brownridge wrote:
> > is the simplest, most legible, and easiest to read system. It
> is the most
> > common layout in BOTH the U.S. and Europe. For example, 365 would be
> > pronounced "three sixty-five" meaning BOTH "three [hundred] sixty-five
> > [centimeters]" and "three [point] sixty-five [meters]". You
> can record it
> > either way without changing the way you pronounce it. No
> mental exercise
> > required.
>
> Given that sixty-five is an integer (i.e., saying it that way
> implies that
> it lies to the left of the decimal point), "three point sixty-five" is an
> arithmetically unsound construction (one I hear journalists constantly
> using). With such construction, "point ten" would seem to follow "point
> nine," when we all know that 0.10 (zero point one zero) is simply a more
> precise rendition of 0.1 (zero point one) and is only one ninth
> the size of
> point nine.
>
> So, can we agree to say "three point six five" for 3.65? <g>
>
> Bill Potts, CMS
> San Jose, CA
> http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
>
>
