on 2002/03/07 15.41, kilopascal at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 2002-03-06
>
> I think they still use feet/inches for height and stone/pounds for weight.
> And clothing sizes might still be in inches.
>
> Am I right?
>
> John
Dear John and All,
You are partly right. Heights are still commonly quoted in feet and inches
but more and more they are being quoted in some kind of metric numbers.
These might be based on the metre (such as 1.8 metres � less often) or on
the centimetre (such as 173 centimetres � more often). My devious mind
almost always checks for hidden ifp; in these examples the 1.8 metres is
probably from a metric measurement but the 173 centimetres looks a lot like
5�feet and 8 inches in disguise. With hindsight, I argue that giving heights
in metres rather than centimetres leads to a faster rate of conversion to
metric heights.
Most people now know their body mass in kilograms. I rarely hear stones and
pounds for adults. But I still hear pounds and ounces for baby masses; I
believe that this is due to the need of a new mother to compare the size of
her baby with those of her sisters, cousins, aunts, mothers, and
grandmothers.
Clothing sizes are all labelled in centimetre sizes. However, the conversion
to centimetres was made as a soft conversion. The standard menswear size of
38" was converted to 97�cm and the intervals between sizes were changed from
2" to 5�cm. This led to workers in the retail menswear trade referring to
97�cm garments as 'size 38' and to 102�cm garments as 'size 40'. Young
entrants to menswear retailing learn this garbage as a jargon and a 'rite of
passage' into the menswear hierarchy. Naturally they share this newfound
knowledge with all their customers.
Womenswear was a little better. Here a 38" garment was also converted to
97�cm, but then this number was rounded to 95�cm with 5�cm intervals. This
made a lot more sense and it did not carry the inch garbage with it as a
portable jargon. However, having said this, I gain the impression that women
take little notice of these centimetre measurements � they get totally
overcome by a set of numbers called size numbers. These are numbers sewn on
to women's garments that have no meaning at all. Size numbers seem to range
from about 6 to about 26 with steps of 2, and one overhears conversations
such as: 'I used to be a size 12, but now I'm a size 14 even though I
haven't put on any weight.' It is not unknown for a manufacturer to change
the numbers on their entire range from 14 to 12 (while leaving the garments
the same size) so that their customers (who are now bigger than they were)
will feel comfortable about buying the 'smaller' size.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
CAMS - Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist
- United States Metric Association
ASM - Accredited Speaking Member
- National Speakers Association of Australia
Member, International Federation for Professional Speakers
--
