At 16:01 2001-02-27 -0700, you wrote:
>The word is "mass that box." It's been used in American textbooks for many
>years, though some traditionalists don't like it.
You can't "mass" an object. You can weigh it in a force field (gravity,
for instance) or measure its effects on a spring, and by these methods you
may infer its mass. But you can't measure the mass directly. It's not
being traditionalist, it's being physical.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > So we find it hard to separate mass and weight. Since when is this new?
It's not hard. F = M A
> > We need to get this figured out. We need a linguist or somebody
> > with brains
> > to invent a word xxxx, a verb both transitive and intransitive, parallel
> > to "weigh" to give the set:
> > weigh weight
> > xxxx mass
> > Then we will have:
> > "That box weighs 7067 newtons."
> > "That box xxxxes 721 kilograms."
> > "Weigh that box."
> > "Xxxx that box."
> > "The weight of that box is 7067 newtons."
> > "The mass of that box is 721 kilograms."
> >
> > The verb and the noun can have different roots.
> > Does any language have such a word?
> >
> > Some have said the verb is "mass" which gives:
> > "That box masses 721 kilograms."
> > "Mass that box."
> > Hey, everybody, what is the word?
> > Robert Bushnell
There is no such word, because there is no such action.
- John Tauxe
