I certainly agree we should avoid "standard." (The SAE would also like people to NOT refer to SAE wrenches for the same reason.)
We do need a generic term for the plethora of systems based on foot-pound units. However, since the late 19th century, it has really come down to two variants. Imperial, as devised in 1824, maintained by the UK, and spread to all Commonwealth nations (until they went metric) and U.S. Customary, certain variants used by the United States, and to some extent, nations we influenced. I think we should use those names when referring to only one of the two systems. What term should describe them generically is open. ________________________________ From: Paul Trusten <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, June 19, 2010 4:28:49 PM Subject: [USMA:47867] metric units vs. traditional or pre-metric units Over the past few months, I decided to refer to non-metric measurement units also astraditional measurement units, but no longer as U.S. Customary units. Although we like to point to the U.S. as the only country without a metrication plan, calling the currently widely-used units in the U.S. "U.S. customary" gives ammunition to those who would attempt to tie the use of these units to the historical success of the country. The units of which we speak were inherited by the United States and used in other countries until the late 20th century, and just because the U.S. is the last country to use them routinely should not make them seem to be an American creature. They are merely traditionally-used units, or perhaps, inch-pound units, or, as Pat Naughtin calls them, pre-metric units. Also, I bristle when I hear the comparison "metric vs. standard" units. Yikes! The SI is the only measurement standard. Paul T.
