American English uses to and too for two different meanings. So spellings
of metre and meter, and litre and liter etc.would be consistent with clearly
different meanings and would improve comprehension.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremiah MacGregor
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 8:02 AM
Subject: [USMA:44848] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
I don't understand their short-sightedness in preferring the -er spelling
over the -re. They should prefer the spelling that is already accepted in the
English speaking world. Since English is already the international language of
trade and SI is the international language of measurement, than there should be
harmonization and agreement as to spellings, at least in terms of technical
use.
As I noted in a previous post, there are logical reasons for preferring the
-re spelling for metre and litre. Don't the people at the NIST understand
logic?
I'm sure the person who made the decision at ASTM to prefer the -er spelling
didn't understand the logic of the -re spelling either.
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John M. Steele <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:43:25 AM
Subject: [USMA:44844] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
I would agree that both spellings are acceptable in the US. NIST SP330
simply says the -er spellings are preferred. (Just as l and L can be used as
the symbol for liter, but L is preferred.)
I am a bit surprised by ASTM. They are one of the professional
organizations that jointly publish SI10. There, they go along with -er
spelling. Not that either is wrong, but they are inconsistent. Do any of the
pages give a rationale?
--- On Sat, 4/25/09, John Frewen-Lord <[email protected]> wrote:
From: John Frewen-Lord <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:44842] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, April 25, 2009, 2:47 AM
I agree with Jerry on this one. Both spellings are acceptable to me,
but the -re spelling makes a bit more sense as a whole (and as Jerry points out
harmonises with the rest of the world).
Still, I would suggest the -re spelling is acceptable in the US. I
don't know about the latest editions, but my copy of ASTM E 621 - 84, Standard
Practice for the Use of Metric (SI) Units in Building Design and Construction
(Committee E-6 Supplement to E 380) uses the -re spelling throughout (see
attached scan).
John F-L
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremiah MacGregor
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 4:03 AM
Subject: [USMA:44833] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
I can't believe the US is so arrogant that they have to make such
an issue over spelling. I don't see why both ways can't be accepted. We use
centre and theatre in the US, so why not litre and metre?
Maybe it is time for the US to adopt the ISO and IEC standards.
Being different in a global market is the surest way to lose business. A
bankrupt economy doesn't have the option to go against the grain. That is most
likely the main reason the US is bankrupt.
Jerry
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Patrick Moore <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 12:48:35 PM
Subject: [USMA:44783] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
Here are two answers for why to buy IEEE/ASTM SI-10 when BIPM is
free.
1.. To spell meter etc., the BIPM uses the spelling –re, which is
unacceptable in edited American English. I mention this, realizing that some
readers in this group are livid that metricians in the USA persist in opening
our eggs at the small end. But there it is, one answer.
2.. Many ASTM and IEEE standards - and so (we hope) many industry
contracts - specify use of IEEE/ASTM SI-10. For many purposes in the USA, it
can achieve regulatory force in a way that BIPM does not.
It would be nice to download IEEE/ASTM SI-10 for free.
I am not making a recommendation here, just answering a question..
My original question, asking for the latest edition, was bibliographic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeremiah MacGregor <[email protected]>
Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:44717] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
Why pay for a publication from the ANSI when the same information
is available for free from the BIPM.
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/
Jerry
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John M. Steele <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:01:31 PM
Subject: [USMA:44688] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
Latest edition is 2002. Here is a link to it at ANSI:
http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=SI10-2002
That edition corresponds to 7th edition of SI Brochure. I
understand it is currently being revised to latest edition of SI Brochure and
NIST SP 330. I don't know the schedule, or the extent of revisions.
.
--- On Wed, 4/15/09, Patrick Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Patrick Moore <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:44687] IEEE/ASTM SI-10
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 11:29 AM
What is the latest publication year/edition of IEEE/ASTM SI-10,
"Standard for the Use of the International System of Units (SI): The Modern
Metric System"? It is difficult to find it in the ASTM catalog or website
or the IEEE site: many documents reference it but the standard itself does not
come up, for me anyway. Thanks.
