I guess it has a lot to do with whether the word came into English via German or French/Latin. Mother (die Mutter) and Father (der Vater) are of German origin and centre, theatre, litre, metre, etc are of French origin.
Yes, you are right about theatre and centre. I tend to see the spelling theater for movies and theatre for live shows. In this case the spelling differtiates the type of performance. Centre is seen in upscale neighborhoods on signs like "City Centre Shopping Plaza".. In many cases there is an advantage to the different spellings as the two spellings can represent similar sounding words of different meanings. A micrometre (me-kro-me-ter) can never be misunderstood as a micrometer (my-krom-et-er),yet when both are spelled the same way there is a momentary pause as to which is meant. Would you ever pronounce kilometre as ki-lom-et-er? But when you see kilometer, your instinct is to say it as ki-lom-et-er instead of the proper key-low-me-ter. Even if they have been used for 200 years, there is no law that says they can't be changed. Americans have been writing numbers less then one without zeros for probably as long, would you consider continuing this practice just because it has a history even if it can cause death or errors? Logic trumps history or at least it should. German and French both have had recent spelling reforms. I think such a reform is long overdue for English. Just because Noah and the NIST pronounce something a certain way, it there isn't a logic to back it up, then it should be ignored. Think of civil disobedience. Jerry ________________________________ From: John M. Steele <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 9:04:55 AM Subject: [USMA:44853] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10 I suppose it is all a matter of how your mothre and fathre taught you to spell. :) It has never been clear to me when British English uses -er and when it uses -re. The -re ending is very uncommon in American English, although there are exceptions like acre, where -er would change the c from hard to soft. Obviously I could concede two words out of all the spelling differences, but, in general, I prefer the simplified American spellings, which have been around since the time of Noah Webster. In most words, the differences are minor and I read right over them. There are a few medical words in which we have simplified dipthongs, and I actually have to stop myself and ask "is that the same word?" I know you will point out the use of theatre and centre in the US, but they are only used in proper names, and, frankly, by organizations attempting to be somewhat "snooty." I will point out that meter and liter have been used in the US at least since the Metric Act of 1866. They appear in the original text; those spellings have a basis in Federal law. --- On Sat, 4/25/09, Jeremiah MacGregor <[email protected]> wrote: From: Jeremiah MacGregor <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:44848] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10 To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, April 25, 2009, 8:02 AM 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.
