This is interesting as it shows that John's comfort in how American measures are defined is of little comfort to those who don't know what the terms meant when the recipe was written down. If the recipe originated in a place or time where the cups and spoons did not mean the same as the American defined, then it is only a guess on anyone's part as to whether the American definitions apply or not.
As John even mentioned, he is confused by commonwealth cups and spoons, yet he may encounter a recipe that originated in those cups and spoons, but being unaware he would assume the American version would apply. Even with his grandmother's recipe he has no idea if the units used to compose the recipe was done with the official designed definitions intended. For this reason the only way use a recipe properly is to convert it to metric at once with sensible rounding and then if the product doesn't come out quite right all one need do is make minor adjustments until the product does come out right and record those metric amounts for future use. Then you can discard the original. Problem solved. Jerry ________________________________ From: Martin Vlietstra <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2009 12:40:14 PM Subject: [USMA:44333] Re: Even with "dual," you can't please everybody John, My father was Dutch and my mother British. One of their wedding presents was a Dutch cookery book – measurements in metric units of course. The statement “100 g zuiker” can easily be translated to “100 g sugar” and is totally unambiguous. All that is needed is a tourist’s phrase book to look up “zuiker”. The phrase book could have been from either a Dutch publishing house or a British publishing house. A number of American recipes have the term “a stick of butter”. As a Brit, that is a meaningless concept to me. I checked in my copy of the “Oxford Concise Dictionary” what was meant by “a stick”. The dictionary gave 16 different meanings for the word “stick” spread over nearly an entire page, but none of them could enlightened me. Similarly with Chamber’s dictionary. Doesn’t this say something about the isolationism that is cause by the use of customary measures? ________________________________ From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John M. Steele Sent: 04 April 2009 15:36 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:44329] Re: Even with "dual," you can't please everybody Pat, You understandably write from a Commonwealth or Australian perspective (I don't mean spelling), and as a metric consultant, you may have a vested interest in making old measurements sound more confusing than they are. I am confused by spoons and cups in recipes from Commonwealth nations. However, if you receive a recipe from the US , there is no confusion; the terms are well-defined and have been for some time. I regularly use a recipe from my greatgrandmother which dates to around 1890. Common cups and spoons may be of any size, but measuring cups and spoons are well defined. They are as important to us as your scales (most are marked in metric as well). Each term is followed by a definition in Customary units, an overly exact metric conversion, and a practically rounded metric conversion: cup: 8 US fl oz, 236.5882 mL, 240 mL ounce: 1 US fl oz, 29.573 53 mL, 30 mL Tablespoon: 0.5 US fl oz, 14.786 76 mL, 15 mL teaspoon: 0.1666... US fl oz, 4.928 922 mL, 5 mL Dry and wet measuring cups are of different designs, but the same capacity. Dry cups are brim fill, stricken level with the back edge of a knife. Wet cups are fill-to-mark. American cooking is entirely volumetric, and it is probably easier to convert to metric volume than determine the density of everything. The cup and tablespoon are noticably different than Australian, but no confusion as the terms are well defined and standardized by NIST (handbook 44 Appendix, C, SP811, etc) Now, if only we could get Americans to convert the above volumes to metric. --- On Sat, 4/4/09, Pat Naughtin < [email protected] > wrote: From: Pat Naughtin < [email protected] > Subject: [USMA:44327] Re: Even with "dual," you can't please everybody To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, April 4, 2009, 9:34 AMDear John, I have posted a response to this that you can find at the same address at http://www.t-g.com/blogs/bettybrown/entry/26458/ Cheers, Pat Naughtin PO Box 305Belmont3216, Geelong, Australia Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA . Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST, and the metric associations of Canada , the UK , and the USA . See http://www.metricationmatters.com/ to subscribe.
