Once again, I think people here are missing the point. I have no problem with using "half liter" as a colloquialism. By doing so, we make the measurement a part of the culture. By law in the US, bottles should be labeled 500 ml, not .5 l. Eventually, we will probably refer to a 600 or 700 bottle as well. Milliliter will be understood. The point is that in spoken language, we need expressions to be simple and easy to say. "Half liter" fits this better than "point five liter" or "500 milliliters".
I even expect that one day soon, "gimme-a-liter-of" will become just as ubiquitous as "let-me-getta-slice" is in NYC. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Gallagher Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 10:50 AM To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:32728] RE: MIT Technology Review > My hope is always that the "0.5 L" designation, as > opposed to > "half-liter", is intended to clear the way for > similar desigations for > the 590 and 710 ml bottles, i.e. "0.6 L" and "0.7 > L", allowing easy > comparison between sizes. > > Of course that would be too simple... You're right that we should never get into a habit of calling something a "half litre". And, of course, a 590 mL bottle couldn't be labelled .6L or 600 mL unless it actually had that extra 10 mL added to it. A 710 mL, on the other hand, could be called .7 L or 700 mL without any change. Stephen Gallagher
