*I cannot imagine a more useless discussion then this one. And it is taking place in a country that I thought was the bastion of practicality. One would think that intelligent people such as those promoting SI would find something more useful to do than arguing about this silliness for five decades. * *But if it is a hobby, than realize that the most influential organization for issuing standards in the US, standards that are widely adopted in other countries, the ASTM, has been publishing its standards with -re. Also, New England is still in the Union; yet, it is full theatres, centres, shoppes, ..... Is that un-American?* *If you are looking for a way to avoid the issue, USE SYMBOLS. I do, and most editors leave them as such in my writings.* *Stan Jakuba * On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:22 PM, John M. Steele <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net>wrote:
> NIST SP 330 "essentially" duplicates the SI Brochure with most differences > explained in footnotes and margin notes. > > American spelling is commented on near the end of the Foreword (iii), > which is unique to SP 330. The BIPM position on the minor spelling > differences is in the Preface to the SI Brochure which appears verbatim on > page 8. American spelling is used throughout the document, mostly without > further comment. Table 6 does comment on the spelling liter, symbol L, and > phrase metric ton in place of tonne (footnotes f and g). Relevant > paragraphs are quoted below. > > From Foreword: > > These differences include the following: (i) The spelling of English words > is in accordance with the > *United > > States Government Printing Office Style Manual > *, which follows *Webster's Third New International > > Dictionary > *rather than the *Oxford Dictionary*. Thus the spellings “meter,” > “liter,” and “deka” are used > > rather than “metre,” “litre,” and “deca” as in the original BIPM English > text; (ii) the name of the unit > > with symbol t and defined according to 1 t = 10^ > 3 kg is called “metric ton” rather than "tonne"; (iii) the > > four units curie, roentgen, rad, and rem are given in Table 10, p. 38; > (iv) a number of "Editors’ notes" > > are added in order to indicate such differences where significant (except > spelling differences) and to > > clarify the text; and (v) a few very minor editorial changes are made in > order to “Americanize” some > > phrases. > > > > From Preface: > > The 22nd CGPM decided, in 2003, following a decision of the CIPM in 1997, > that > > “the symbol for the decimal marker shall be either the point on the line > or the comma > > on the line”. Following this decision, and following custom in the two > languages, in > > this edition the point on the line is used as a decimal marker in the > English text, and > > a comma on the line is used in the French text. This has no implication > for the > > translation of the decimal marker into other languages. A point to note is > that small > > spelling variations occur in the language of the English speaking > countries (for > > instance, “metre” and “meter”, “litre” and “liter”) > *†*. In this respect, the English text > > presented here follows the International Standard ISO 31, > *Quantities and Units*. > > > > Table 6, Footnotes f and g: > > ( > *f*) The liter, and the symbol lower-case l, were adopted by the CIPM in > 1879 (PV, 1879, 41). > > The alternative symbol, capital L, was adopted by the 16th CGPM (1979, > Resolution 6; CR, > > 101 and > *Metrologia, *1980, *16*, 56-57) in order to avoid the risk of confusion > between the > > letter l (el) and the numeral 1 (one). > *Editors’ note: *Since the preferred unit symbol for the > > liter in the United States is L, only L is given in the table; see the > *Federal Register *notice of > > July 28, 1998, “Metric System of Measurement: Interpretation of the > International System of > > Units for the United States” (FR 40334-4030). > > ( > *g*) *Editors’ note: *Metric ton is the name to be used for this unit in > the United States; see the > > aforementioned > *Federal Register *notice. The original English text in the BIPM SI > Brochure > > uses the CGPM adopted name “tonne” and footnote ( > *g*) reads as follows: The tonne, and its > > symbol t, were adopted by the CIPM in 1879 (PV, 1879, 41). In English > speaking countries > > this unit is usually called “metric ton.” > > > > > > Of all the differences, I would prefer to use tonne in place of metric > ton, but am hoist on my own petard, and shouldn't, based on the argument I > advanced. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Anthony R Fletcher <anth...@bifb.org> > > *To:* U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> > *Cc:* U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> > *Sent:* Mon, February 4, 2013 6:40:37 PM > *Subject:* [USMA:52322] RE: Spelling of "Meter" > > Thanks for the NIST reference. If it's that enshrined then my > cause is lost. > > British spelling isn't that bad. In this case it's consistent with > the French. It just seems just another pointless spelling change. > > Anthony. > > > On 04 Feb 2013 at 15:21:09, John M. Steele wrote: > > If you feel strongly, then you should convince NIST to change their > official > > recommendation in NIST SP 330 (I think you would also have to persuade > the US > > Governement Printing Office). Until it is officially changed, we should > NOT > > send mixed messages to our fellow Americans, whom we are trying to > persuade to > > metricate, by departing from SP 330 recommendation, and leaving them > with two > > contradictory US sources about metrication. > > > > It is not like we are brimming with success in that goal. However, > consistency > > can only help, and inconsistency can only help it fail. > > > > I would further point out that the SI Brochure acknowledges these > differences > > and remains neutral on them. It neither condemns nor endorses, it > simply states > > the differences exist and lists what they use. Also BIPM takes no > position on > > spelling differences in other languages, only on the worldwide > consistency of > > symbols (except "l" and "L" for liter, US prefers "L"). > > > > As for my own personal feelings, I see no reason to favor a general > return to > > British spelling, and changing only metre, litre, deca- and otherwise > retaining > > American spelling seems silly, so I would be for persuading NIST NOT to > change. > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Anthony Fletcher <anth...@bifb.org> > > To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> > > Sent: Mon, February 4, 2013 5:08:08 PM > > Subject: [USMA:52318] RE: Spelling of "Meter" > > > > Sorry to disagree. The rest of the world uses metre and litre so the > > US should just follow. There are enough issues without changing the > > words as well..... It's going to be a hard battle anyway, you might as > > well go for the whole hog. > > > > Anthony. > > > > > > On 04 Feb 2013 at 19:31:27, mechtly, eugene a wrote: > > > I advocate the phonetic American English spelling "meter" for > continental USA. > > > > > > When traveling in French speaking regions, I attempt to pronounce > meter as > > >"me-tre." > > > > > > The attempt to distinguish the unit name "meter" from the name of an > instrument > > >"meter" by spelling reforms is without necessary justification in my > opinion. > > >The spellings meter and meter are not a "reversion" but are continuity > of well > > >established and correct practice in the USA. Combining attempted > spelling > > >reforms with efforts to metricate the USA create only hostility to all > metric > > >units of measurement, not just to the SI unit of length, the meter. > > > > > > Eugene Mechtly > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [owner-u...@colostate.edu] on behalf > of > > >c...@traditio.com [c...@traditio.com] > > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 12:48 PM > > > To: U.S. Metric Association > > > Subject: [USMA:52312] Spelling of "Metre" > > > > > > Carleton is correct in stating that there are those regional spelling > > > preferences -- in general. At one time the U.S. Metric Association > made > > > what I thought was a useful distinction: "metre" is the measurement, > > > "meter" is the measuring instrument. > > > > > > Since making that distinction more than a decade ago, the USMA seems to > > > have reverted to the "meter" spelling for both, following the standard > of > > > U.S. Government publications. Perhaps the USMA thought that the > "metre" > > > spelling was too "exotic" for the U.S. > > > > > > As someone who thinks that distinctions are good to keep in language, I > > > prefer the USMA's original position distinguishing between the > measurement > > > and the measuring instrument by a difference in the spelling. > > > > > > ============ > > > On Sun, 3 Feb 2013, Carleton MacDonald wrote: > > > > > > > With regard to spelling, sorry, both are right. In the USA it's > meter, > > > > theater, center. In Canada and the UK it's metre, theatre, centre. > > > > It's a regionalism, NOT an error. > > > > >
