Threw and through which are pronounced the same but have different
meanings.
The point I was trying to make is to distinguish between meter (device) and
metre (length).
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Potts
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 4:42 PM
Subject: [USMA:44864] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10 -- now off topic
I'm familiar with Slough, which is where the headquarters of Novell Europe
used to be in the 1980s. I found it ordinary, but not actually awful.
I avoided the word slough, though, as it can have several of the available
-ough pronunciations, depending on meaning and dialect (slaow, slow, sluff,
sloo. . . .).
If you ever saw The Reluctant Debutante (Rex Harrison, Kay Kendall, Sandra
Dee, John Saxon, etc.), you may remember a character by the name of David
Fenner, who bored people to death with his descriptions of various supposedly
optimal routes into London from the West. (He had no other topic of
conversation.) Apparently, in the pre-M4 Motorway days, it was almost
impossible to avoid Slough, one of the main bottlenecks on the A4. David would
get part way through his route description and stop short, with the rueful
comment (in a grating Old-Etonian accent), ". . . but then there's Slough."
Bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Potts
WFP Consulting
Roseville, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Stephen Humphreys
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:48
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:44863] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
And 'Slough' - a god awful town in Berkshire, UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [USMA:44862] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 12:33:41 -0700
John:
There are, in fact, eight ways of pronouncing -ough.
ow, as in bough
uff, as in rough,
oo, as in through
aw, as in ought
up, as in hiccough
oh, as in dough
off, as in cough
uh, as in thorough
Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Potts
WFP Consulting
Roseville, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of John Frewen-Lord
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 09:24
To: U.S. Metric Association
Subject: [USMA:44859] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
Actually, the non-American way of spelling a demand drawn on a bank is
cheque (no 'c' before the 'q').
In terms of pronunciation (and a bit off topic I admit), there are
something like 6 or 7 ways of pronouncing -ough.
Finally, I am reminded of the old joke about a newly married couple on
their honeymoon, and the wife wrote to her mother saying: "Fred and I had a
long row this morning." The mother went bananas, untill she remembered that
the couple were holidaying on the Norfolk Broads... (For the benefit of US
readers, the Norfolk Broads is a part of England famed for its rivers and
waterways.)
John F-L
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremiah MacGregor
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 3:07 PM
Subject: [USMA:44857] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
There is also tow and toe, bow and bough. Then bow can have two
different pronunciations depending on its meaning. Then there is Polish
(people from Poland) and polish (to make something shine). The people should
be called Pollacks. That is what they call themselves.
Then there is check, which means a mark of approval or a bank note.
However, the bank note is spelled checque outside the US to distinguish the
different meanings. Then again there is the Czech people, the name pronounced
like check.
Even bank has two meanings, the land next to a river or a place to keep
money. Maybe the place to keep money should be spelled as banque (along with
checque) to note the difference.
I won't even get into to all of the different pronunciations for the
-ough spelling.
Sometimes simplicity causes confusion.
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: STANLEY DOORE <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]; U.S. Metric Association
<[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 9:20:43 AM
Subject: Re: [USMA:44848] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Windows Live Messenger just got better. Find out more!
