On 18/01/07 8:28 AM, "Martin Vlietstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> In my first test in the physics class at University we were set a problem
> involving Bernoulli's equation of fluid flow.  There was a real mish-mash of
> units - inches, centimetres, metre/second, pressure in psi, accelatation due
> to gravity as 9.8 m/s^2 and so on.  The test was to see who had the sense to
> reduce everything at a compatible set of units.  Very few student got it right
> and since we wer ein teh top tutorial group (everybody in our group having gat
> an "A" at secondary school) we had a right dressing down from the professor.
> I will never forget it.
>  
> I now explain it as "Je ne par mix mon units" or "Ich mussen mir units nicht
> mixen"  Perhaps the American version would replace the French or German with
> Spanish.
>>  
Dear Martin,

I had trouble with your explanatory quotations so I ran them past two
linguistic friends who responded to my request as follows:

**
The subtleties consist firstly of incompatible mixes of languages in each
statement. Understanding either of the statements is only possible if one
looks beyond the actual language used to the underlying non-linguistic
concept implied. Neither statement is in correct French nor German. Each
statement uses some French or German language with grammatical errors mixed
with English vocabulary, which is itself incorrectly placed, and used
ungrammatically.

FRENCH

Je Š French Š (1st person nominative pronoun Š used grammatically correctly
here) Š means 'I'

ne Š French Š (first element of negative particle used with verbs Š second
must be included after the verb to give this valid meaning) Š intended to
mean first half of 'not'.

par Š not French Š maybe English Š (intended as second mandatory element of
negative particle used with verbs Š must be included after the verb to give
valid negative meaning correct word would be pas) Š no relevant meaning here
Š intended to mean second half of 'not'.

mix Š not French Š maybe English Š maybe Franglais, depending on who is
using it and why. A perfectly suitable word exists in French but is not used
here Š no relevant meaning in French here. (If this were French the
grammatical ending is incorrect. Maybe considered grammatically correct
spelling in English or Franglais.) Š intended to mean 'mix'

mon Š French Š (The grammatical form is incorrect here as this pronoun must
agree in gender and number with the noun following it) Š intended to mean
'my'

units Š not French Š maybe English Š maybe Franglais Š (intended as plural
noun) Š intended to mean 'units'

GERMAN

Ich Š German Š (1st person nominative pronoun Š used grammatically correctly
here) Š means 'I'

mussen German Š (verb Š should agree with subject Š 1st person singular. The
grammatical form used is incorrect here and is spelled incorrectly Š form is
plural Š either 1st, 2nd or 3rd plural) Š intended to mean 'I must'

mir Š German Š (should be 1st person plural possessive pronoun Š must agree
with following noun Š the grammatical form used is incorrect here Š uses
singular form here Š dative singular form) Š intended to mean 'my'

units Š not German as far as I know Š intended to mean 'units'

nicht Š German Š grammatically correct Š means 'not'

mixen Š not German as far as I know Š (uses grammatically correct ending if
it were German verb form) intended to mean 'mix'

Not withstanding all of the above: if anyone understood all three languages
and the concepts which the speaker is addressing the meaning might be
understood by rapid intellectual filtering and adjustment! Ergo:

Mixing units obfuscates and retards understanding concepts

But maybe some people can bypass language structures when communicating
mathematically ‹ provided the mathematical terms are correctly used Š TOO
HARD BASKET FOR MOST.

What a conundrum! Hits the message home by showing that whatever medium is
used concepts can be expressed satisfactorily only by correct use of the
medium. Try demonstrating the properties of mercury by singing a flowing
melody in a Chinese scale into which you insert a phrase from Moussorsky's
Promenade and at the same time making each interval either a major or a
minor third different from the original key.

Clever send up of the use of mixed units in mathematics Š a real Anna
Russell.

Cheers,

Pat Naughtin
PO Box 305, Belmont, 3216
Geelong, Australia
Phone 61 3 5241 2008

Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online monthly newsletter,
'Metrication matters'.
You can subscribe at http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter

Pat is also recognised as a Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication
Specialist (LCAMS) with the United States Metric Association. He is also
editor of the 'Numbers and measurement' section of the Australian Government
Publishing Service 'Style manual ­ for writers, editors and printers'. He is
a Member of the National Speakers Association of Australia and the
International Federation for Professional Speakers. See:
http://www.metricationmatters.com

This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee and may
contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. This
email and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be partly
or wholly reproduced without the consent of the copyright owner. Any
unauthorised use of disclosure of this email or its attachments is
prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please immediately delete it
from your system and notify the sender by return email.


Reply via email to