I completely agree with Bill that one should not say "five point
thirty-two." One should say "five point three two." My original example that
caused this flap was only meant to convey that the normal American practice
of pronouncing a three-digit number such as 532 as "five thirty-two" could,
when read directly from a tape measure, be formally written down as either
532 cm or as 5.32 m--in exactly the same way that "five thirty-two" of money
is understood by everyone to mean $ 5.32, even though no one would ever say
"five point thirty-two dollars".
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Bill Potts
> Sent: 2000 October 27 Friday 12:32
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Subject: [USMA:8823] RE: Tape layouts
>
>
> 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]
> >
> >
>
>
