If the NIST is not going to be persuaded to "disregard American
practices", than why do we bother to promote metrication? By a long
shot, SI is far from being an American practice. So if we want to
promote American practices, then shouldn't we be promoting USC
world-wide and consider metrication as anti-American and anathema to the
American way of life?
Where do we draw the line between what American practices are desirable
and and undesirable?
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* James R. Frysinger <[email protected]>
*To:* U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Monday, April 27, 2009 12:54:17 PM
*Subject:* [USMA:44884] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
The spelling of unit and prefix names is not a part of the SI. It is not
an issue that the CGPM, the CIPM, or the BIPM care about. Those are
language-dependent matters. By contrast, the unit and prefix symbols are
part of the SI and are thus universal, which is why their use is
preferred over spelled out names.
To NIST has been duly delegated the responsibility for defining American
usage practices in implementing the SI Brochure. National Metrology
Institutes in other countries do similarly for implementing the SI and
implementing its use in their languages.
This is not a discussion about the SI. I suggest that this discussion be
moved to alt.language.english or some such forum. Alternatively, one can
write to NIST and ask them to disregard the common practice in American
English of spelling such words with -er endings. The preface to NIST SP
330 will explain their current rationale to you. NIST is not likely to
be swayed by your appeals to disregard American practices, however.
Jim
Patrick Moore wrote:
> -re is not SI.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *Jeremiah MacGregor <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> *Reply-To: *<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> *Date: *Sat, 25 Apr 2009 05:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
> *To: *"U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> *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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> *To:* U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>/* wrote:
>
> From: John Frewen-Lord <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> Subject: [USMA:44842] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]
<mailto:[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
> <mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> *To:* U.S. Metric
Association <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*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] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> *To:* U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> *Reply-To: *<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> *Date: *Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
> *To: *"U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> *To:* U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>/* wrote:
>
> From: Patrick Moore <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> Subject: [USMA:44687] IEEE/ASTM SI-10
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]
<mailto:[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.
>
>
>
>
-- James R. Frysinger
632 Stony Point Mountain Road
Doyle, TN 38559-3030
(C) 931.212.0267
(H) 931.657.3107
(F) 931.657.3108
