-----Original Message----- From: Joseph B. Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: February 24, 2002 19:56 Subject: [USMA:18405] Re: Inacurracy of the original metre unit!!
>Stephen Gallagher wrote in USMA 18392: > >Albert Mettler, Secretary of the Canadian Metric Association, carried out >an International Survey of Metric Practice in 1975-76. He found that: > > >*Summary* *metre* *meter* *metro* *metr* *other* *total* > >Totals (millions) 274 530 418 50 34 1302 > Proportion 21% 41% 32% 4% 3% >Number of literates > (millions) 245 455 320 45 30 1095 > Proportion 22% 42% 29% 4% 3% > >Note that figures are for populations that use the Roman alphabet. > >Comments by JBR > It is only the symbols for units that are standarized by the CGPM; the >names of units vary from language to language. > >It may say something about contrariness of metric devotees that Louis >Sokol, of Czech descent, Secretary of the US Metric Association favored, >"metre" because in writing it made a distinction from "meter", an >instrument. English is the only language I know of in which this >distinction is necessary or possible. > >On the other hand, Albert Mettler, Secretary of the Canadian Metric >Association, of German Swiss background, favored "meter" because it is >phonetic and more widely used. > >I favor Sokol's argument. Moi aussi Duncan > > >Joseph B.Reid >17 Glebe Road West >Toronto M5P 1C8 TEL. 416-486-6071 >
