Euric, You're mixing up two very different things. Take the way the French use the "livre," for example. I can go to a grocer and ask for meat or produce by the livre. The unit pricing will be by the kilo. The grocer's scale will be in grams or kg. My receipt will show the amount I bought in g or kg. Using the term "livre" only made things simple and convenient for the customer, which may be a good thing. It was verbal only, and no measuring devices reference the traditional unit in any way. It's also relevant that the size of a "livre" was standardized to 500 g about two centuries ago, and prior to that was not standardized (if I recall correctly) so it made sense at that time to adopt a standard value for the entire country.
You are advocating that the measuring devices themselves use the name of the traditional unit with a new value different from the current standard value. Also, you have nominated yourself to decide for everyone else how much precision they need for a particular unit. How would you like it if someone decided for you that metric tapes should use 40 inch meters? After all, you would probably never notice the difference anyway, right? John On Friday 20 February 2004 21:14, Chimpsarecute wrote: > I disagree! > > There isn't a culture on earth in which the traditional unit names have not > survived metrication. They have done so because people are attached to > them and also because their have been redefined to rounded metric values to > make them more harmonised with metric devices. Unit names have survived > the times because they were never fixed to exact values but were allowed to > change with the times and whims of the authorities of the times. > > As a country or culture metricates, the devices change. When a device is > calibrated in a metric unit it makes it difficult for someone who uses the > old unit name to relate to the new metric sizes. Redefining old names to > rounded metric values helps ease the transition. When a pound is redefined > as 500 g, it may seem to some the old system is still here, but it isn't. > It is just the name that has survived. > > If you don't make the change in value to the old names you will find a lot > of resentment to the metric system. Because people will find it hard to > work with the odd numbers of the old meanings and the devices that are > calibrated strictly in SI units. People in Europe who may still use names > like livre, pond, pfund, libre, etc. don't feel confused when they go to > the market and see only a scale with a metric display. They know that when > they ask for something by the old unit name, they can easily see what they > are getting on a scale not calibrated in the old unit when the old name > refers to a rounded number in metric. > > I'm sure some will insist that leaving the old names as they are will > facilitate their demise. I disagree. It will only breed bitterness and > resentment towards metric. Because the old unit names have changed value > and in most cases had varying values depending on location makes it easier > and less drastic if these unit names change again. > > I realise that the people of the US and UK think they are something special > and that there is something special about their version of ancient unit > names and for this reason it is unthinkable that they be altered, > especially to conform with what some would consider the measurements of > "inferior" nations. But they are not special and neither are their units. > > I just wonder how much faster the kilogram would have been accepted if > people were taught in the beginning to think of a pound as 500 g and giving > the green light for shops to dole out 500 g amounts when a pound was > requested. By this time, I believe the need to add pound pricing to ads > would have vanished and people in Canada would be having a market > experience similar to what is seen everywhere else. Keeping the old unit > definitions with odd conversions to SI is one of main the reason Canada > hasn't fully moved to SI and is stuck in the middle. > > Euric > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John S. Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, 2004-02-20 22:42 > Subject: [USMA:28834] Let's not go backwards! > > > A common theme on this list is to redefine traditional units to new > > metricated > > > sizes, like the messages in current thread advocating redefining cups to > > 250 > > > ml, or previous suggestions to redefine a pound as 500 g. > > > > I think this goes 100% contrary to the goals of the USMA. Possibly the > > greatest defect of traditional measures is that they have different sizes > > in > > > different places and contexts. Redefining them doesn't make this problem > > better - it makes it worse. All old documents, measuring devices, > > recipes, > > > etc. will still all be referring to the older definition, while newer > > measuring devices and documents may (or may not) refer to the new > > definition. > > > But the different sizes will have the same name. The result is chaos! > > > > The solution is to use modern metric measures. Grams. Kilograms. > > Milliliters.
