«

Lee hu kiteb:

> Fabian said:
>>
>> Lee hu kiteb:

>> Unless you are writing for a specific national audience, it is bad
>> style to use words for a specific meaning that is used only in that
>> country.
>
> No it isn't, if the meaning is clear in context.

Read again - the OP gave no context.

>>> Nonsense. Any English-speaker who can't figure out what
>>> "standard" means when contrasted with "metric" shouldn't
>>> be trying to use a keyboard without supervision.
>>
>> I do believe there are many people on the Internet, including this
>> particular newsgroup, whose first language is NOT English.
>
> Of course. But if their vocabularly includes words like "inch",
> "mile", and "gallon", it should not be confusing to them to find
> "standard" contrasted with "metric".


It would if standard had a specific meaning in that person's country
which had a different specific meaning in the country of the OP.

>> In my country, "standard" (yes, its even an English-speaking country!
>> English is an official language!) refers to units such as the xiber
>> and the pulzier. Are these maybe what you had in mind?
>
> I would hope that in your English-speaking country, it is normal
> to consider the context when interpretting a word.

Let's see, the OP wanted a "standard to metric" converter. No mention of
country was involved. Given teh context, any person from my country
would assume standard *was* referring to the xiber et alii.

Dr John Stockton hu kiteb:

> In the above, I disregard Canada, since others can never be sure how
> much they are American and how much they are French; and also any
> other odd countries still using antiquated units (which are they?).

I maintain a list on my web page. I don't keep track of their current
usage, merely their existence.

fwiw, furlongs are in current usage in the British train industry, and
Japanese house floor area is currently measured in jou (tatami mats).


--
--
Fabian
Visit my website often and for long periods!
http://www.lajzar.co.uk

In article <>,
HikksNotAtHome <> writes
<snip>
>And if you go to just about any non-American country and ask "Whats the
>standard measurement of length", you will get "Meters" 99% of the time.
<snip> ^^^^^^

Unlikely : "metres" hasn't got a capital letter and most countries spell
it the ISO way

John
--
John Harris

In article <4xGiwPPv77n$>, Dr John Stockton
<> writes
<snip>
>Provided that one remembers that the units used in America, which they
>tend to call English units, are not necessarily the same size as the
>units of the same name which have in the past been used in England, the
>rest of the UK, and in the Dominions and the other Colonies.
<snip>

It's worse than that. When the USA changed the definition of the yard so
that 1 inch = 2.54 cm exactly, US industry changed but the US Survey
didn't change (or couldn't afford to). There are now two official US
miles : the 'survey mile' and the 'international mile'.

John
--
John Harris

Fabian said:
>
>Lee hu kiteb:
>
>> Fabian said:
>>>
>>> Lee hu kiteb:
>
>>> Unless you are writing for a specific national audience, it is bad
>>> style to use words for a specific meaning that is used only in that
>>> country.
>>
>> No it isn't, if the meaning is clear in context.
>
>Read again - the OP gave no context.

Yes he did. He said he was converting from standard to metric.
That's all the context any English-speaker should require.


>>>> Nonsense. Any English-speaker who can't figure out what
>>>> "standard" means when contrasted with "metric" shouldn't
>>>> be trying to use a keyboard without supervision.
>>>
>>> I do believe there are many people on the Internet, including this
>>> particular newsgroup, whose first language is NOT English.
>>
>> Of course. But if their vocabularly includes words like "inch",
>> "mile", and "gallon", it should not be confusing to them to find
>> "standard" contrasted with "metric".
>
>
>It would if standard had a specific meaning in that person's country
>which had a different specific meaning in the country of the OP.

There's no avoiding that possibility. It is very rare, and the people
in that other country are more likely to know that their use collides
with the US usage than the other way around.


>>> In my country, "standard" (yes, its even an English-speaking country!
>>> English is an official language!) refers to units such as the xiber
>>> and the pulzier. Are these maybe what you had in mind?
>>
>> I would hope that in your English-speaking country, it is normal
>> to consider the context when interpretting a word.
>
>Let's see, the OP wanted a "standard to metric" converter. No mention of
>country was involved. Given teh context, any person from my country
>would assume standard *was* referring to the xiber et alii.

Really? Were you confused into thinking that, even for a moment,
or do you bring some common sense into play in understanding what
people mean when the terminology isn't completely precise?

Lee hu kiteb:

> Fabian said:

>> Read again - the OP gave no context.
>
> Yes he did. He said he was converting from standard to metric.
> That's all the context any English-speaker should require.


There are many English speakers who consider standard to be equal to
metric. There are many English speakers who learned English as a foreign
language, and for them, standard may well refer to something that
neither of us has ever heard of.

Suppose I asked for a script to convert standard floor areas to metric.
Do you assume standard is square yards? I happen to be in Japan right
now, so I would in fact be referring to jou, not square yards. There was
no context given, so you can't make a useful assumption.

>>> Of course. But if their vocabularly includes words like "inch",
>>> "mile", and "gallon", it should not be confusing to them to find
>>> "standard" contrasted with "metric".
>>
>> It would if standard had a specific meaning in that person's country
>> which had a different specific meaning in the country of the OP.
>
> There's no avoiding that possibility. It is very rare, and the people
> in that other country are more likely to know that their use collides
> with the US usage than the other way around.


You obviously have no idea how unimportant the USA is considered in my
country The USA rarely makes news in the national press, except when
it interfers in the affairs of a nearby country, and then only as a
byline to that country being interfered with. Most people in my country
have no idea what units the USA uses.

>> Let's see, the OP wanted a "standard to metric" converter. No
>> mention of country was involved. Given teh context, any person from
>> my country would assume standard *was* referring to the xiber et
>> alii.
>
> Really? Were you confused into thinking that, even for a moment,
> or do you bring some common sense into play in understanding what
> people mean when the terminology isn't completely precise?

Well, I didn't think he was referring to my particular country's
definition of standard. I assumed he was referring to his own country's
definition of standard. Given that there was no hint as to which country
he meant, I had no idea whatsoever what he meant by standard.


--
--
Fabian
Visit my website often and for long periods!
http://www.lajzar.co.uk

John G Harris hu kiteb:

> In article <4xGiwPPv77n$>, Dr John Stockton
> <> writes
> <snip>
>> Provided that one remembers that the units used in America, which
>> they tend to call English units, are not necessarily the same size
>> as the units of the same name which have in the past been used in
>> England, the rest of the UK, and in the Dominions and the other
>> Colonies.
> <snip>
>
> It's worse than that. When the USA changed the definition of the yard
> so that 1 inch = 2.54 cm exactly, US industry changed but the US
> Survey didn't change (or couldn't afford to). There are now two
> official US miles : the 'survey mile' and the 'international mile'.

You forgot the nautical mile, officially equal to exactly 1852 metres.

And then there is the *standard* nautical mile, which is 1852 *meters*.

If you (in general, not specifically) think I am making fun of you, you
are probably well deserving of being made fun of on this point. If you
decide to believe I am not making fun of you, then no harm whatsoever
has been done.

--
--
Fabian
Visit my website often and for long periods!
http://www.lajzar.co.uk

Fabian said:
>
>Lee hu kiteb:
>
>> Fabian said:
>
>>> Read again - the OP gave no context.
>>
>> Yes he did. He said he was converting from standard to metric.
>> That's all the context any English-speaker should require.
>
>
>There are many English speakers who consider standard to be equal to
>metric. There are many English speakers who learned English as a foreign
>language, and for them, standard may well refer to something that
>neither of us has ever heard of.
>
>Suppose I asked for a script to convert standard floor areas to metric.
>Do you assume standard is square yards? I happen to be in Japan right
>now, so I would in fact be referring to jou, not square yards. There was
>no context given, so you can't make a useful assumption.

That's not really comparable to the OP. Nobody (except possibly you)
has disputed that his meaning was immediately obvious.


>> There's no avoiding that possibility. It is very rare, and the people
>> in that other country are more likely to know that their use collides
>> with the US usage than the other way around.
>
>
>You obviously have no idea how unimportant the USA is considered in my
>country The USA rarely makes news in the national press, except when
>it interfers in the affairs of a nearby country, and then only as a
>byline to that country being interfered with. Most people in my country
>have no idea what units the USA uses.

I would expect that those few who read this newsgroup understand that
their obscure measurement system is virtually unheard of in the rest
of the world (unlike the US system) and so would have enough common
sense to realize that "standard" didn't refer to it.


>>> Let's see, the OP wanted a "standard to metric" converter. No
>>> mention of country was involved. Given teh context, any person from
>>> my country would assume standard *was* referring to the xiber et
>>> alii.
>>
>> Really? Were you confused into thinking that, even for a moment,
>> or do you bring some common sense into play in understanding what
>> people mean when the terminology isn't completely precise?
>
>Well, I didn't think he was referring to my particular country's
>definition of standard. I assumed he was referring to his own country's
>definition of standard. Given that there was no hint as to which country
>he meant, I had no idea whatsoever what he meant by standard.

I can understand you saying that you couldn't be more than 99.99%
sure, but I find it difficult to believe that you had no idea.

Lee <> writes:

> Yes he did. He said he was converting from standard to metric.
> That's all the context any English-speaker should require.

It is enough that I can guess that "standard" is some local standard
for measurement from where he comes from, and that I don't know enough
about it to help him. I guess that is sufficient.

I am not certain I haven't heard the term used about US measurements
before, but I guessed that the author was from the US *because* he
didn't say.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen -
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

Dr John Stockton said:
>
>JRS: In article <3f9ed665$0$2239$>, seen
>in news:comp.lang.javascript, RIck Measham <>
>posted at Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:50:21 :-
>>piaseckiac wrote:
>>
>>> I am producing a website on air and need a link to change the entire
>>> website from standard to metric for temperature, pressure,
>>> miles-kilometers, and volume. Thank you.
>>
>>If you're just looking for a way to convert static imperial values to static
>>metric values, then Google is your friend.
>
>
>Provided that one remembers that the units used in America, which they
>tend to call English units, are not necessarily the same size as the
>units of the same name which have in the past been used in England, the
>rest of the UK, and in the Dominions and the other Colonies.

Actually, if I Google "standard to metric", the very first hit
is a page titled "US Standard to Metric Measurement Conversions",
so it seems that Google is a friend, after all.

I don't believe that anybody outside the US can be as disgusted
with the US system as those of us who are stuck with it, and who
still hear idiotic reasons why we should continue to use it.

Back when it was on track to being accepted, schools concentrated
too much on teaching conversion factors, instead of showing the
simplicity of a decimal system. As a result, far too many people
think of the metric system is more complicated, because you keep
having to divide or multiply by 2.54 or 454, etc.

Meanwhile, I'm stuck with directions that say to add 6 ounces of
concentrate to one gallon of water, and a container that only
holds a pint and a half.