Who exactly makes the rules of English grammar?
Petibacsi
just who or what organization makes the rules and direction lines of English
grammar?
If I know well, nobody. So talking about "this is against the rules" is kind
of an oxymoron.
Let me explain. In Hungary there is an official body called the Magyar
Tudomanyos Akademia (Hungarian Academy of Science) where very smart
professionals make up new rules, trends and tendencies, concerning Hungarian
grammar and useage. Their advace is taught in schools after that so the
government tries to make sure that their decision in a question is not just a
plain advice but a followable example that gets to be used by the population.
Also there is an official Hungarian grammar book, that lays down the basic
rules
that should be followed by every Hungarian speaking person. This is also taught
in schools.
If I know well, the French has a similar body, the French Academy, working in
the same way.
But there is no such a body with such a function in English. There is some
kind of Royal Academy of this or that, but that doesn't make decisions
followable for all English speakers concerning English grammar, pronounciation
or usage.
So when we refer here to English grammar rules, are we talking about only
tradition?
Peti
Writer S
> If I know well, nobody. So talking about "this is against the rules" is kind
>of an oxymoron.
Not exactly. There are established rules of grammar.
> So when we refer here to English grammar rules, are we talking about only
>tradition?
>
Largely, yes. There is no Académie Anglaise, as there is an Académie
Francaise for French. We use tradition for the majority of our rules.
Some rules (traditions) are being challenged. Spelling changes over
time. Eventually, we may be left with a language very unlike the
English we know today.
Bob Newman
> Reading the starting a sentence with and or but thread I started to wonder,
> just who or what organization makes the rules and direction lines of English
> grammar?
>
> If I know well, nobody. So talking about "this is against the rules" is kind
> of an oxymoron.
We also have an unwritten constitution, which makes it far more stable than the
written constitutions of lesser countries, though I've never quite understood why.
Everyone can say, without fear of contradiction, that English grammar is what they
say it is. This is democratic and a good thing (even when Neil Coffey gets in on
the act).
Bob Newman
Petibacsi
>There are established rules of grammar.
Where can it be read?
>Bob:
>Everyone can say, without fear of contradiction, that English grammar is what
they
>say it is. This is democratic and a good thing
Really? So if I say that starting a sentence with but or and is OK, than it
is OK?
If I say "between you and I" is correct, than you have no right to say
otherwise?
BTW I really liked the idea of "lesser countries". Care to define it? :)
Peti
Dale Houstman
" So when we refer here to English grammar rules, are we talking about only
tradition? "
But of course there do have to be some rules: or else one person couldn't speak to another at all. Within a certain grounded set of guidelines English is incredibly flexible. Even in those other countries you mentioned (France notably) with their laughable machinery of stasis, they find soon enough that the diurnal marketplace of language defeats them: I am certain the French language police aren't too happy with "le jazz"Basically, yeah: it's a complex tradition of common usage (which varies from region to region, and even town to town, and some learned "compilers" (Webster comes to mind, but there is a huge army of these in English) who try to "fix" the flow of language, much to their regret it doesn't always work.
and "le hot dog" among a growing number of "intruders". Nuts to them...
Language isn't about purity, but the "rules" as such are created through a sort of "internet" of neologistic authors, local talkers, and the struggles of the Academic world: it is (to be cliche) a rich tapestry. Sometimes (to some ears) a travesty, no doubt, but it appears to have its own way almost.
Or something like that.
Dale H
Writer S
>>Writer S:
>
>>There are established rules of grammar.
>
> Where can it be read?
>
It these things we call "grammar textbooks."
>>Bob:
>
>>Everyone can say, without fear of contradiction, that English grammar is what
>they
>>say it is. This is democratic and a good thing
>
Not so fast. You can say, 'Bleeb hooha," and claim it's English for
"good morning." Doesn't make it so. A language is only as valuable
as the sense it makes to others.
You can say anything you want, but at some point you're simply trying
to be a gadfly.
> Really? So if I say that starting a sentence with but or and is OK, than it
>is OK?
>
> If I say "between you and I" is correct, than you have no right to say
>otherwise?
>
Wrong, because you have no right to tell me that I can't tell you
otherwise.
See how silly this argument is?
Why are you so fired up about determining who owns the "rights" to
English, anyway?
Again, English grammar is the was it is because of tradition and some
sense of logic (spelling notwithstanding).
Petibacsi
>It these things we call "grammar textbooks."
My problem was with the authority of such a book. See, if I write a grammar
book, but incorrect, who can say that it shouldn't be followable?
>A language is only as valuable
>as the sense it makes to others.
Exactly. And because "between you and I" makes sense to millions of people
although incorrect.....
>Wrong, because you have no right to tell me that I can't tell you
>otherwise.
The opposite of it is also true. :)
>Why are you so fired up about determining who owns the "rights" to
>English, anyway?
Because if there is an authority we can go and ask who is right. When there
is no authority usage determines. Just like in the case of "between you and I".
:)
Peti
Sam Brookes
> So when we refer here to English grammar rules, are we talking about only
>tradition?
strengths of English is its on-going ability to change, accepting new
words as people find it convenient to coin them. Less frequently it
also accommodates changes in grammar which too occur because people find
it convenient to follow a new construction.
--
Sam Brookes
Writer S
>>Writer S:
>
>>It these things we call "grammar textbooks."
>
> My problem was with the authority of such a book. See, if I write a grammar
>book, but incorrect, who can say that it shouldn't be followable?
>
Well, anyone who knows the tenets of grammar, for one.
>>A language is only as valuable
>>as the sense it makes to others.
>
> Exactly. And because "between you and I" makes sense to millions of people
>although incorrect.....
>
But you admit it's incorrect.
Be consistent! Would you say, "She gave the paper to Mark and me" or
"She gave the paper to Mark and I" ? (yes, the question mark is in
the wrong place) According to you, it would be fine to eliminate
"Mark and" and simply say "She gave the paper to I". Go ahead if you
want to , but it's incorrect and makes you sound like a buffoon.
Still, as you say, it's your choice.
>>Wrong, because you have no right to tell me that I can't tell you
>>otherwise.
>
>The opposite of it is also true. :)
>
>>Why are you so fired up about determining who owns the "rights" to
>>English, anyway?
>
> Because if there is an authority we can go and ask who is right. When there
>is no authority usage determines. Just like in the case of "between you and I".
> :)
>
> Peti
Well, say it! But at least have the decency to admit you're just
trying to be a contrarian.
I would LOVE to see you try to get a job in a major corporation, say
as an editor for Doubleday, saying things like,"Yeah, boy, I got me
all this hyere exper'unce. Writ me a book 'bout grammer. Twixt you
an' I, it were a bitch."
Petibacsi
Writer doesn't see my point.
>Writer S:
>Well, anyone who knows the tenets of grammar, for one.
But that is the whole point. Just from where we are supposed to learn such a
thing if there is no officially written textbook for it, and everybody can
write one?
>Be consistent!
Oh I am, believe me. :)
>Well, say it! But at least have the decency to admit you're just
>trying to be a contrarian
It was just an example, don't chew on it. The point of not having an official
body for English grammar rules is that we don't have an authority to decide
problematic questions.
BTW you forgot to define the idea of "lesser countries". :)
Peti
Writer S
> We are not really getting ahead with this conversation, probably because
>Writer doesn't see my point.
>
Wrong. I see your point. I saw it from the beginning, but I still
think you're trying to be a gadfly.
Look, there are rules that govern English, and they are based on
tradition and custom. Hell, the Académie Francaise is invalid if all
Francophones decide to ignore it.
But there are rules. Flouting them is a sign of rebellion. That's
okay by me, but at least admit that's what you're doing.
>>Writer S:
>>Well, anyone who knows the tenets of grammar, for one.
>
> But that is the whole point. Just from where we are supposed to learn such a
>thing if there is no officially written textbook for it, and everybody can
>write one?
>
Your 4th grade grammar book was very likely virtually identical to
mine.
Can you cite any variations between any two grammar texts, to prove
they are inconsistent and, therefore, one must be wrong?
>>Be consistent!
>
> Oh I am, believe me. :)
>
But you didn't address the example I gave.
>>Well, say it! But at least have the decency to admit you're just
>>trying to be a contrarian
>
> It was just an example, don't chew on it. The point of not having an official
>body for English grammar rules is that we don't have an authority to decide
>problematic questions.
>
You're the one who keeps posting messages using that example.
And I STILL haven't heard a "problematic question." You're simply
saying, "Popular usage should rule." Well, I quote George Carlin on
the subject: "Fuck popular usage."
> BTW you forgot to define the idea of "lesser countries". :)
>
No, I didn't. It was in someone else's message, not mine.
> Peti
JUST AN H
>just who or what organization makes the rules and direction lines of English
>grammar?
I would venture to guess that the rules of English are governed by a number of
variables: Usage, tradition and general acceptance by generations of educated
people who speak it.
Additionally, proper English has always been a definition of a person's social
class. For example, one would probably never hear "I need some salt. Where's
it at?" at a State dinner at Buckingham Palace. Vis-a-vis, one would would
hardly expect to encounter proper English in a make-shift cardboard shelter
beneath some bridge, or at an inner-city crack house.
Back to the subject: Proper English seems to be the result of centuries of
conspiracy. Authors and poets invented it. Parents, libraries, schools and
universities pass it on.
J.
Petibacsi
>Look, there are rules that govern English, and they are based on
>tradition and custom.
Well, that is pretty much the answer to my question.
> Hell, the Académie Francaise is invalid if all
>Francophones decide to ignore it.
As I mentioned before that's why the Academie writes an official grammar book
and all the other authors of such books supposed to follow it.
>Your 4th grade grammar book was very likely virtually identical to
>mine.
I have an other interesting question: Is there such a thing as holding
copyrigths of grammar books?
>Can you cite any variations between any two grammar texts, to prove
>they are inconsistent and, therefore, one must be wrong?
1. I was talking theoretically.
2. I am sure I could find. :)
>eard a "problematic question." You're simply
>saying, "Popular usage should rule."
Actually I never said that. I simply asked questions.
Peti
Stephen Pike
What about the difference between colloquial and 'street' use of
English which tends to 'play' with the language and invent new forms
and, say, the writer's craft, which is more rigid (and probably well
that it is so)? If I were to write a business letter it would
probably appear much the same now as what my Aunt would have written
twenty years ago - but she would never have been heard to use the word
"kewl", something done which, I admit, I have.
----------
stephen p.
Stephen Pike
janelaw
There are a number of commonly used usage and style guides.
They are copyrighted. They do not concur on all points.
Neither do dictionaries.
School grammar books are chosen by the schools. Sometimes a
state board of education sets guidelines for the curriculum.
Publishers submit their packages to conform to the guidelines.
The packages included student texts, workbooks, supplementary
teacher materials, etc. The state board evaluates these and
informs school districts that certain publishers' packages
comply with their guidelines. Individual school districts then
peruse, test, and otherwise evaluate the different packages.
Eventually, one publisher's package is chosen for the district.
Not only are their copyrights on grammar books, there is intense
competition in this lucrative market.
Alex R. Cohen
>Can you cite any variations between any two grammar texts, to prove
>they are inconsistent and, therefore, one must be wrong?
One point of style that comes to mind immediately is the comma before "and"
in a simple series. E.g.:
The American flag is red, white and blue.
The American flag is red, white, and blue.
The Associated Press Stylebook, The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage
and The Washington Post Deskbook on Style ban that comma. The Chicago Manual
of Style, The Elements of Style (Strunk & White), and some other texts
require it.
This, of course, is a rule of style and, therefore, more flexible than a
rule of grammar. Or is it? Would anyone like to try to define the difference
between "style" (in the sense of "AP style" or "Chicago style") and
"grammar"?
-Alex R. Cohen
Writer S
>>Writer s:
>>Look, there are rules that govern English, and they are based on
>>tradition and custom.
>
> Well, that is pretty much the answer to my question.
>
And I said so in my first post (slap) ;-)
>> Hell, the Académie Francaise is invalid if all
>>Francophones decide to ignore it.
>
> As I mentioned before that's why the Academie writes an official grammar book
>and all the other authors of such books supposed to follow it.
>
But there is no physical property causing them to. Once again, it's
common agreement, as I stated before.
>>Your 4th grade grammar book was very likely virtually identical to
>>mine.
>
> I have an other interesting question: Is there such a thing as holding
>copyrigths of grammar books?
>
Well, of course. Any book is copyright. But grammar is no more
"copyrightable" than is history. You can't print a history book
describing the Norman Conquest of England, and prevent any other
history author from doing anything other than plagiarizing your text.
>>Can you cite any variations between any two grammar texts, to prove
>>they are inconsistent and, therefore, one must be wrong?
>
>1. I was talking theoretically.
>2. I am sure I could find. :)
>
I await your example.
>
>>eard a "problematic question." You're simply
>>saying, "Popular usage should rule."
>
> Actually I never said that. I simply asked questions.
>
> Peti
If you read your post, it's clear you were doing more than simply
asking questions.
I answered all of the questions you asked in the beginning. You kept
pressing the point about your example.
Bottom line: There is no physical property preventing people from
spelling however they wish, or using words in any order they wish.
All grammar is pretty much majority consensus. If you disagree with
some prohibition in any language, go found a language of your own.
Esperanto comes to mind.
Writer S
>> Reading the starting a sentence with and or but thread I started to wonder,
>>just who or what organization makes the rules and direction lines of English
>>grammar?
>
>I would venture to guess that the rules of English are governed by a number of
>variables: Usage, tradition and general acceptance by generations of educated
>people who speak it.
>
>Additionally, proper English has always been a definition of a person's social
>class. For example, one would probably never hear "I need some salt. Where's
>it at?" at a State dinner at Buckingham Palace. Vis-a-vis, one would would
>hardly expect to encounter proper English in a make-shift cardboard shelter
>beneath some bridge, or at an inner-city crack house.
>
>Back to the subject: Proper English seems to be the result of centuries of
>conspiracy. Authors and poets invented it. Parents, libraries, schools and
>universities pass it on.
>
>J.
Visitor: Where's the library at?
Harvard snot: At Harvard, we do not end sentences with prepositions.
Visitor: Oh, I'm sorry. Where's the library at, asshole?
Petibacsi
>Alex:
<snip example of difference between some grammar textbooks>
Thanks Alex. I knew there were plenty, just Writer S didn't believe me.
It was obvious to me that there ca not be a dozen grammar book agreeing on all
points of English grammar.
That's when an authority in a language can solve these kin of problems.
Peti
Charles Riggs
>Well, of course. Any book is copyright. But grammar is no more
>"copyrightable" than is history. You can't print a history book
>describing the Norman Conquest of England, and prevent any other
>history author from doing anything other than plagiarizing your text.
Poppycock.
janelaw
>
>
> That's when an authority in a language can solve these kin of problems.
>
Who said it's a problem?
Robert Lieblich
Well, I don't know about Ireland (where Charles apparently lives), but
in the United States no one can copyright information per se. What is
copyrightable is *expression*. The fact that Carl Sandburg and dozens
of others have written biographies of Abraham Lincoln is no bar to my
writing one. I can use the same facts they have, and I can even glean
those facts from their books. What I cannot do is reproduce in my book
the language in their books. I can reproduce books that are in the
public domain without penalty, but I cannot claim copyright in them for
myself.
The other side of the coin is that I, as an author, cannot publish a
book on a particular subject and then attempt to ban others from
publishing their own books on the same subject. They are free to set
forth the same information I have as long as they don't copy my way of
expressing it, i.e., plagiarize the text. Up to a point (and it's
damned hard to reach that point), they can even take the factual
information in my text, rewrite it, and publish with impunity.
This is, to be sure, the el cheapo condensed version of a subject that
lawyers spend whole semesters -- hell, whole careers -- on. But unless
you are relying on some unique Irish copyright law, Charles, you spoke
in too much haste and are simply wrong.
Bob Lieblich
Petibacsi
When I asked about copyrights of a grammar book, I had a special case in my
mind.
The Language Department of the Hungarian Acadamy of Science produces an
official book of grammar rules and usages for the Hungarian language, what all
teachers and publishers of other grammar books supposed to follow. (When I was
in school we actually used this official original version, but I don't suppose
they do it anymore.)
Thus copying from that official book is kind of obligated and excepted.
That's how the government makes sure that the directions in usage and the
changes in the language go into that direction what the language professors at
the Academy decided to be correct and followable.
Since there is no such an official grammar book published by some kind of
authority in English, (and that is the subject of this thread)
pretty much everybody can publish such a book, but I was wondering that what
gives authority to the writer of such a book.
Actually the lack of an official English grammar book is quite
understandable. Historically English is so widespread on earth and is the
official language of so many countries, that simply there is way that one
country's official body could control the grammar over other countries' usage.
Although I could imagine that back in England the Royal whatever would have
made such an effort.
But exactly this lack of official authority gives a space when new problems
arise in usage, and the solution is simply the majority's rule, how the new
idea become widespread, logical/meaningful or not.
Peti
Petibacsi
>Who said it's a problem?
Me. I was talking about new problems, that always arise when the language
changes through time.
For example, an authority of the English language could solve the him/her
problem.
They would make up a genderless word, the newspapers, broadcasters would
start to use it and in a few years it would be widespread, taught in schools,
used by everybody.
That simple.
Peti
Writer S
>
>>Alex:
>
><snip example of difference between some grammar textbooks>
>
> Thanks Alex. I knew there were plenty, just Writer S didn't believe me.
Wrong, jerko. I just asked for an example. Don't put words in my
mouth.
>
> It was obvious to me that there ca not be a dozen grammar book agreeing on all
>points of English grammar.
>
> That's when an authority in a language can solve these kin of problems.
>
> Peti
You keep changing your "point" like you change your underwear. At
first you bragged how you could say anything you wanted to and no one
could say you're wrong. Ha ha, look at me, I can say JHGFIUHG and if
you don't understand my meaning, well, there's no English authority.
Now you're saying there should be.
My previous reaction is more and more clearly correct -- you simply
want to be a gadfly.
Writer S
>
>>Who said it's a problem?
>
> Me. I was talking about new problems, that always arise when the language
>changes through time.
>
Give an example. And DO NOT complain that I do not believe you. I
want an example. Understand English? E-X-A-M-P-L-E.
> For example, an authority of the English language could solve the him/her
>problem.
>
And so could common sense. Is that so incredibly hard to figure out?
> They would make up a genderless word, the newspapers, broadcasters would
>start to use it and in a few years it would be widespread, taught in schools,
>used by everybody.
>
And force everyone to accept it? No way.
Tell me. What do you do to punish Americans who reject the metric
system? The push to teach it started almost 30 years ago, and we
stick with the English system.
> That simple.
>
That stupid. Just go away. You're trying to start an argument and
you refuse to answer at least half of the responses to your drivel.
Writer S
>
> When I asked about copyrights of a grammar book, I had a special case in my
>mind.
>
> The Language Department of the Hungarian Acadamy of Science produces an
>official book of grammar rules and usages for the Hungarian language, what all
>teachers and publishers of other grammar books supposed to follow. (When I was
>in school we actually used this official original version, but I don't suppose
>they do it anymore.)
>
> Thus copying from that official book is kind of obligated and excepted.
>That's how the government makes sure that the directions in usage and the
>changes in the language go into that direction what the language professors at
>the Academy decided to be correct and followable.
>
So fucking what? That's Hungary. That's the only place in the world
where Magyar is spoken. They can afford to be insular.
English is the lingua franca of trade, industry, science, you name it.
There is no English authority, so accept it and go away.
> Since there is no such an official grammar book published by some kind of
>authority in English, (and that is the subject of this thread)
>pretty much everybody can publish such a book, but I was wondering that what
>gives authority to the writer of such a book.
>
> Actually the lack of an official English grammar book is quite
>understandable. Historically English is so widespread on earth and is the
>official language of so many countries, that simply there is way that one
>country's official body could control the grammar over other countries' usage.
>
> Although I could imagine that back in England the Royal whatever would have
>made such an effort.
>
> But exactly this lack of official authority gives a space when new problems
>arise in usage, and the solution is simply the majority's rule, how the new
>idea become widespread, logical/meaningful or not.
>
> Peti
Only those problems which people like you insist need to be solved.
The rest of us simply adjust and go on with life.
P&DSchultz
>
> Charles Riggs wrote:
> > (Writer S) wrote:
> >
> > >Well, of course. Any book is copyright. But grammar is no more
> > >"copyrightable" than is history. You can't print a history book
> > >describing the Norman Conquest of England, and prevent any other
> > >history author from doing anything other than plagiarizing your text.
> >
> > Poppycock.
>
> Well, I don't know about Ireland (where Charles apparently lives), but
> in the United States no one can copyright information per se. What is
This point comes up in a very illustrative way, time after time, on
the alt.genealogy newsgroup. People will labor for years, sometimes
a lifetime, building up a large database of genealogical information,
which they will then proudly post on a web page or in a newsgroup.
Usually it is no more than information -- J. Smith, born 1883,
married 1902 to Molly Jones of Chicago; 3 children: Tom, Dick, & Harry,
etc. Then, others will spot branches of the tree which they share, and
will graft them onto their own information. Eventually, the information
finds its way into a book or CD-ROM offered for sale. And when the
original researcher sees that, he goes absolutely ballistic. Here is
twenty years of HIS OWN INFORMATION, culled in a dozen cross-country
car trips to dusty libraries, and someone else is making money by
selling it! BOY, they get mad. They vent on the newsgroup, and make
angry threats. They want to sue to recoup what's coming to them, or to
block publication. Their only hope, probably, is to find some fragments
of *expression* in the information ("Uncle Henry, a pensive and dapper
accountant with a passion for tropical fish, was born in Cleveland...").
//P. Schultz
Petibacsi
>Writer S:
>I await your example.
How about the use of ain't? I bet some grammar books say it is OK and others
say it is not.
>If you read your post, it's clear you were doing more than simply
>asking questions.
<smile> I was called both gadfly and Socrates on other newsgroups.
>There is no physical property preventing people from
>spelling however they wish, or using words in any order they wish.
Long live freedom! (even with bad grammar)
>All grammar is pretty much majority consensus.
So what if the majority of people start to use (sleng) words in an incorrect
way? Than those words, expressions become correct?
I don't think so.
> If you disagree with
>some prohibition in any language,
No, I disagree with your idea how language rules come to exist. Maybe they
become accepted and used, but they are still incorrect just because the
majority use them.
Peti
Petibacsi
>Writer S:
>
>So fucking what?
How about fucking you? :)
Why do you get so upset? It was an example.
If you can't deal with it, taugh life. :)
> That's Hungary.
So what? I bet there are several other countries with similar official bodies
for preserving thier languages. Wanna bet?
> That's the only place in the world
>where Magyar is spoken.
Yeah, not to mention Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and even Australia.
Bushmen speak it rather well. :)
(50% of Hungarian speakers live spread around all over the word, not in
Hungary.)
>English is the lingua franca of trade, industry, science, you name it.
I explained the historical background for not having such an official body.
>There is no English authority, so accept it and go away.
I accept it, but where should I go? :)
>Only those problems which people like you insist need to be solved.
>The rest of us simply adjust and go on with life.
It doesn't seem that way just by reading your responses. :)
Peti
Petibacsi
>Writer S:
>Wrong, jerko. I just asked for an example. Don't put words in my
>mouth.
And why did you ask for an example? Because you didn't believe me.
>You keep changing your "point" like you change your underwear.
Just between you and "I", during the summer I don't even wear underwear. And
even in the winter I don't change more often than once a month. :)
At
>first you bragged how you could say anything you wanted to and no one
>could say you're wrong.
And that's what pissed you off?
> Ha ha, look at me, I can say JHGFIUHG and if
>you don't understand my meaning, well, there's no English authority.
Oh, so the lack of English authority pissed you off then. :)
>Now you're saying there should be.
I am just wondering, just wondering dear.....
>My previous reaction is more and more clearly correct -- you simply
>want to be a gadfly.
I don't want to be, I am. :)
But no need for anger just because you can't answer questions.
I guess this thread came to an end.
Peti
Petibacsi
>My best friend the Writer wrote:
>Tell me. What do you do to punish Americans who reject the metric
>system? The push to teach it started almost 30 years ago, and we
>stick with the English system.
Exactly the same as the Brittish did. Make it official. It takes a few years,
decads but eventually it will stay.
The same with grammar.
Changes are unavoidable except from the coke-machine.
Peti
Charles Riggs
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:12:17 GMT, pri...@not.given (Writer S) wrote:
>>
>> >Well, of course. Any book is copyright. But grammar is no more
>> >"copyrightable" than is history. You can't print a history book
>> >describing the Norman Conquest of England, and prevent any other
>> >history author from doing anything other than plagiarizing your text.
>>
>> Poppycock.
>
>Well, I don't know about Ireland (where Charles apparently lives), but
>in the United States no one can copyright information per se. What is
>copyrightable is *expression*. The fact that Carl Sandburg and dozens
>of others have written biographies of Abraham Lincoln is no bar to my
>writing one. I can use the same facts they have, and I can even glean
>those facts from their books. What I cannot do is reproduce in my book
>the language in their books. I can reproduce books that are in the
>public domain without penalty, but I cannot claim copyright in them for
>myself.
>
>The other side of the coin is that I, as an author, cannot publish a
>book on a particular subject and then attempt to ban others from
>publishing their own books on the same subject. They are free to set
>forth the same information I have as long as they don't copy my way of
>expressing it, i.e., plagiarize the text. Up to a point (and it's
>damned hard to reach that point), they can even take the factual
>information in my text, rewrite it, and publish with impunity.
>
>This is, to be sure, the el cheapo condensed version of a subject that
>lawyers spend whole semesters -- hell, whole careers -- on. But unless
>you are relying on some unique Irish copyright law, Charles, you spoke
>in too much haste and are simply wrong.
>
>Bob Lieblich
Now I agree. I was referring to your statement "You can't print a
history book describing the Norman Conquest of England, and prevent
any other history author from doing anything other than plagiarizing
your text." when I, perhaps hastily, perhaps not, applied the word
poppycock. The statement implied to me that an author writing on the
same subject, and that could be any subject I assumed, was forced to
commit plagiary.
Charles
Charles Riggs
>On 17 Sep 1998 22:02:40 GMT, peti...@aol.com (Petibacsi) wrote:
>
>>
>> When I asked about copyrights of a grammar book, I had a special case in my
>>mind.
>>
>> The Language Department of the Hungarian Acadamy of Science produces an
>>official book of grammar rules and usages for the Hungarian language, what all
>>teachers and publishers of other grammar books supposed to follow. (When I was
>>in school we actually used this official original version, but I don't suppose
>>they do it anymore.)
>>
>> Thus copying from that official book is kind of obligated and excepted.
>>That's how the government makes sure that the directions in usage and the
>>changes in the language go into that direction what the language professors at
>>the Academy decided to be correct and followable.
>>
>
>So fucking what? That's Hungary. That's the only place in the world
>where Magyar is spoken. They can afford to be insular.
>
>English is the lingua franca of trade, industry, science, you name it.
>There is no English authority, so accept it and go away.
>
>> Since there is no such an official grammar book published by some kind of
>>authority in English, (and that is the subject of this thread)
>>pretty much everybody can publish such a book, but I was wondering that what
>>gives authority to the writer of such a book.
>>
>> Actually the lack of an official English grammar book is quite
>>understandable. Historically English is so widespread on earth and is the
>>official language of so many countries, that simply there is way that one
>>country's official body could control the grammar over other countries' usage.
>>
>> Although I could imagine that back in England the Royal whatever would have
>>made such an effort.
>>
>> But exactly this lack of official authority gives a space when new problems
>>arise in usage, and the solution is simply the majority's rule, how the new
>>idea become widespread, logical/meaningful or not.
>>
>> Peti
>
>Only those problems which people like you insist need to be solved.
>The rest of us simply adjust and go on with life.
Your obscene language and total lack of manners has forced me to put
you on my "Delete any further messages" list: one I normally reserve
only for spam advertisers. Who wants to read your childish rubbish.
Charles
Robert Lieblich
<snip>
> So what if the majority of people start to use (sleng) words in an incorrect
> way? Than those words, expressions become correct?
>
> I don't think so.
Look up "mob" in a good dictionary. Or "fan" in the sense of one who
watches sports.
> No, I disagree with your idea how language rules come to exist. Maybe they
> become accepted and used, but they are still incorrect just because the
> majority use them.
Why, then, aren't you addressing us in Old English?
Bob Lieblich
Writer S
>
>>Writer S:
>
>>I await your example.
>
> How about the use of ain't? I bet some grammar books say it is OK and others
>say it is not.
>
Finally! An example.
There is ample evidence "ain't" is contraction for "am not" -- whether
people wish to use if is up to them. If you choose to use it and
people consider you an idiot, well, that's your problem.
>>There is no physical property preventing people from
>>spelling however they wish, or using words in any order they wish.
>
> Long live freedom! (even with bad grammar)
>
Fine, as long as you don't mind being shut down by those who consider
you ill-educated.
>>All grammar is pretty much majority consensus.
>
> So what if the majority of people start to use (sleng) words in an incorrect
>way? Than those words, expressions become correct?
>
???? Can't get your meaning, there.
> I don't think so.
>
>> If you disagree with
>>some prohibition in any language,
>
> No, I disagree with your idea how language rules come to exist. Maybe they
>become accepted and used, but they are still incorrect just because the
>majority use them.
>
> Peti
Too bad. I'm right. All language rules exist because people have
agreed on them. Sometimes because of an academy, to be sure, but
always by agreement.
Writer S
>
>>My previous reaction is more and more clearly correct -- you simply
>>want to be a gadfly.
>
> I don't want to be, I am. :)
>
> But no need for anger just because you can't answer questions.
>
> I guess this thread came to an end.
>
> Peti
I have answered all of your questions, and you still twist things.
You just love to be difficult. I suspect you don't even care about
the answers to your questions.
Writer S
>
>>Writer S:
>>
>>So fucking what?
>
> How about fucking you? :)
>
No, fuck you, twathead.
I know it was an example. I asked (and you didn't answer, I notice)
why you keep banging on the same one over and over as if it were an
icon of some sort.
> Why do you get so upset? It was an example.
>If you can't deal with it, taugh life. :)
>
Can you PLEASE spell correctly? What the hell are you saying?
>> That's Hungary.
>
> So what? I bet there are several other countries with similar official bodies
>for preserving thier languages. Wanna bet?
>
No, because my point was that they're not a country that uses English.
>> That's the only place in the world
>>where Magyar is spoken.
>
> Yeah, not to mention Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and even Australia.
>
(sigh) As the majority language, idiot.
> Bushmen speak it rather well. :)
>
Proving what? That they aren't braindead fools? Agreed.
>(50% of Hungarian speakers live spread around all over the word, not in
>Hungary.)
Wasn't my point in the first place. God, you're an idiot.
>>English is the lingua franca of trade, industry, science, you name it.
>
> I explained the historical background for not having such an official body.
>
>>There is no English authority, so accept it and go away.
>
> I accept it, but where should I go? :)
>
Who gives a shit?
>
>>Only those problems which people like you insist need to be solved.
>>The rest of us simply adjust and go on with life.
>
> It doesn't seem that way just by reading your responses. :)
>
> Peti
So learn to read.
P&DSchultz
>
> >My best friend the Writer wrote:
>
> >Tell me. What do you do to punish Americans who reject the metric
> >system? The push to teach it started almost 30 years ago, and we
> >stick with the English system.
>
> Exactly the same as the Brittish did. Make it official. It takes a few years,
But you would only want to make it official if there were some good
reason to adopt it. And since the people seem to think there isn't,
why should it be made official?
Besides, it already is official, alongside our traditional system.
Most people already use it for certain things. If they want to adopt
it, they will. I think the bottom line is that the U.S. government
gives its citizens more credit for having the brains to make their
own decisions than some other governments do.
//P. Schultz
Writer S
>
>>My best friend the Writer wrote:
>
>>Tell me. What do you do to punish Americans who reject the metric
>>system? The push to teach it started almost 30 years ago, and we
>>stick with the English system.
>
> Exactly the same as the Brittish did. Make it official. It takes a few years,
>decads but eventually it will stay.
>
Ah, but it IS official here. And everyone IGNORES it.
> The same with grammar.
>
You're still misconstruing things. I know grammar rules change with
time. But they change at the consensus level, not at the academie
level.
John Naisbitt wrote, in Megatrends 2000 (I think), that fads are
imposed from the top, whereas trends start from the grassroots
(bottom).
If you wish to introduce your own changes, go ahead. I still say
you'll be looked at askance by those who adhere to accepted rules.
It's a choice you make, and you must live with the consequences.
> Changes are unavoidable except from the coke-machine.
>
Not where I work. I only sometimes get the correct change.
> Peti
Writer S
Mizzell) wrote:
>> > >Tell me. What do you do to punish Americans who reject the metric
>> > >system? The push to teach it started almost 30 years ago, and we
>> > >stick with the English system.
>
>US "Imperial" measurements are not the same as British "Imperial"
>measurements. A US gallon is a third less than a UK gallon.
>
That's why I used the term, "English." That's the name given to
ounce-pint-quart-gallon, inch-foot-yard-mile, etc Your point is thus
superfluous.
>> But you would only want to make it official if there were some good
>> reason to adopt it. And since the people seem to think there isn't,
>> why should it be made official?
>>
>> Besides, it already is official, alongside our traditional system.
>> Most people already use it for certain things. If they want to adopt
>> it, they will. I think the bottom line is that the U.S. government
>> gives its citizens more credit for having the brains to make their
>> own decisions than some other governments do.
>
No, the US government officially recognizes only the metric system.
We Americans, creatures of habit that we are, hold fast to the English
system (please note, I indicated "English," not "British." Thus any
corrections are unnecessary).
>Adopting a particular measurement system, or switching from one to
>another, has cost implications for industry. The UK is part of the EC,
>the EC uses the metric system, hence the UK now officially uses the
>metric system. It's part of the harmonisation process. It cost a lot
>of money to convert from the one system to the other. I don't
>suppose the US would take the decision lightly.
>
>
You don't know American politics very well, then. The Congress voted
to adopt the metric system almost 30 years ago - perhaps even more -
because our friends across the pond were doing it. "Seemed like a
good idea at the time" seems to summarize their attitudes, back then.
Today it wouldn't even come up for a vote without spending more in
hearings than the actual conversion would cost. Ah, well.
John Davies
writes
"I have answered three questions and that is enough"
Said his father, "--don't give yourself airs.
Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff?
Be off, or I'll kick you downstairs!"
Or as my father often said to me "I've taught you all I know, and you
still know nothing."
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
Writer S
Mizzell) wrote:
>Writer S (pri...@not.given) wrote:
>> That's why I used the term, "English." That's the name given to
>> ounce-pint-quart-gallon, inch-foot-yard-mile, etc Your point is thus
>> superfluous.
>>
>
>What point is superfluous to what? There isn't an "English" measuring
>system in England. There's Imperial, or there's metric. Both are
>different from the US system.
>
I never said there was. Just as there is nothing English about
English muffins, nor French about French fries.
My point, which I thought I had made plainly, was that the system of
measurement involving inches, feet, yeard, ounces, pints, quarts,
gallons, ETC, is called the English system.
>> No, the US government officially recognizes only the metric system.
>> We Americans, creatures of habit that we are, hold fast to the English
>> system (please note, I indicated "English," not "British." Thus any
>> corrections are unnecessary).
>
>Now let me get this straight. You're holding fast to the "English"
>system, which is not the same as any system in use in England....
>Wouldn't it be more accurate to call it the American system?
>
Maybe, but that's not the name applied to it.
And btw, I don't personally hold to the system. It's our society
itself that refuses to make the conversion.
>> You don't know American politics very well, then. The Congress voted
>> to adopt the metric system almost 30 years ago - perhaps even more -
>> because our friends across the pond were doing it. "Seemed like a
>> good idea at the time" seems to summarize their attitudes, back then.
>
>It's not just a question of a vote. It has to do also with what markets
>a country interacts with. Because Britain is part of the EC, whatever
>is produced in Briatin must be compatible with the things that
>are produced elsewhere in the EC. I think that those are the sort of
>pressures that really do cause a country to change to a new system,
>rather than it seeming like a good idea. It's even caused British
>manufacturers to come round to the idea of selling electrical goods
>with the plug already on the end of the cord. Previously, you
>used to have to buy your toaster or whatever, then you also had
>to buy a plug for it, then you went home, got out your electrical
>screwdriver, opened up the plug, carefully threaded the three
>different flexes on to the correct screws in the plug (being
>careful not to confuse earth, live, and neutral), put it all together
>again and at last you could make toast.
>
>Progress! Don't knock it!
>
Who's knocking it? Geez! Get a grip!
>But getting back to measurement -- legislation also is important --
>not the kind of legislation that says metrication is A Good Thing,
>but the kind that requires e.g. that the net weight of prepacked food
>must be shown in kgs. Since it costs more to do things in two systems,
>most manufacturers and supermarkets have just switched to metric, hence
>the shoppers also must shift to metric.
>
You clearly don't shop in American stores. I still buy beer in 12-oz
cans, and bananas by the lb. Like it or not, that's how it is.
And before you accuse me of living in some backwater, I have lived in
St Louis, Seattle, San Jose, and other large cities. It's the same
everywhere in America. Like it or not.
>It wouldn't be so easy for Congress to pass that sort of legislation,
>as there would be bound to be a lot of resistance from various
>powerful sections of industry.
>
Doesn't matter. They did pass such legislation. And they did get
flak from industry, who flipped them a sort of commercial bird by
refusing to make a mass migration.
>Temperature measurement, on the other hand, doesn't carry the
>same implications, or not to the same extent. The weather forecasters
>here have been using Celsius for decades -- often, the temperature is
>*only* given in Celsius -- but most people still seem to think in
>Fahrenheit. Since they don't have to shop in Celsius, it doesn't
>make much of an impact.
>
So why bring it up?
>HTH, HAND
Gesundheit.
Charles Riggs
Mizzell) wrote:
>P&DSchultz (schu...@erols.com) wrote:
>> Petibacsi wrote:
>> >
>> > >My best friend the Writer wrote:
>> >
>> > >Tell me. What do you do to punish Americans who reject the metric
>> > >system? The push to teach it started almost 30 years ago, and we
>> > >stick with the English system.
>
>US "Imperial" measurements are not the same as British "Imperial"
>measurements. A US gallon is a third less than a UK gallon.
>
I'd say a U.S. gallon is closer to 20 per cent less than an imperial
gallon since:
1 U.S. gallon = 3.785 litres and
1 imperial gallon = 4.546 litres.
Charles
Charles Riggs
Mizzell) wrote:
>> That's why I used the term, "English." That's the name given to
>> ounce-pint-quart-gallon, inch-foot-yard-mile, etc Your point is thus
>> superfluous.
>>
>
>What point is superfluous to what? There isn't an "English" measuring
>system in England. There's Imperial, or there's metric. Both are
>different from the US system.
Yes, there is indeed an English measuring system. In it the three
basic physical quantities are measured in the units of foot, pound and
second. It is called the English system in all parts of the world
except, perhaps, Great Britain. In the metric system the three
corresponding quantities are of course meter, kilogram and second. It
is for these reasons that physicists sometimes call the first the FPS
system and often call the second the MKS system or CGS system if
centimeter, gram and second are the basic units. No sane scientist
would calculate in the English system today as, one: conversions among
the units are less straightforward than in the logical metric system
and two: the English units are defined now in terms of the standard
metric units so there is little or no reason to calculate with English
units in the first place. The "second" is defined the same way in all
systems I know of.
As far as I know there is no imperial "system" except in the way GB
and Ireland measured liquids (and continue to measure pints of beer).
The imperial gallon (and the derived quart and pint) was defined the
way it was for some obscure historic reason I suppose. The British
also had a different way from all the rest of the world in the way
they used to grade hand tools such as wrenches and sockets. It was
called Whitworth. The British were so inconsistent during the
conversion process a number of years ago, that I once owned a Triumph
motorcycle with metric, English and Whitworth bolts and nuts; hence, I
needed sets of all three type wrenches to do the repairs it constantly
required!
Charles
Gene Nygaard
pri...@not.given (Writer S) wrote:
> On 19 Sep 1998 22:27:22 +0100, $news1$@nospam.demon.co.uk (Ellen
> Mizzell) wrote:
>
>
> >> That's why I used the term, "English." That's the name given to
> >> ounce-pint-quart-gallon, inch-foot-yard-mile, etc Your point is thus
> >> superfluous.
> >>
> >
> >What point is superfluous to what? There isn't an "English" measuring
> >system in England. There's Imperial, or there's metric. Both are
> >different from the US system.
> >
>
> English muffins, nor French about French fries.
>
> My point, which I thought I had made plainly, was that the system of
> measurement involving inches, feet, yeard, ounces, pints, quarts,
> gallons, ETC, is called the English system.
You are absolutely right. It is a matter of history, not current usage. (And
in any case English units are still used to a considerable extent in England;
but Greeks don't use the Greek system of measurement and Romans don't use the
Roman system of measurements any more.)
Gene Nygaard
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Daniel James
> US "Imperial" measurements are not the same as British "Imperial"
> measurements. A US gallon is a third less than a UK gallon.
>
Nearly right.
In both systems a gallon is 8 pints, but a US (liquid) pint is 16 fluid
ounces whereas an Imperial pint (i.e. a British Imperial pint) is 20.
The fluid ounces used by the two systems are very nearly identical.
My Encyclopaeida Britannica tells me that in the US a differently sized
pint is used for dry measure (sugar, flour, etc.) whereas here in the
UK we have only the one unit (and tend to measure dry ingredients by
weight). Britannica also notes that the unit 'pint' has been in use
since around the 14th Century, but has varied in size over the years.
I don't know when the 20-fl.oz. pint became the standard, but my copy
(a modern reprint) of Eliza Acton's "Modern Cookery", first published
(in England) in 1840-something notes that Miss Acton's pint would have
been 16 fluid ounces.
> The UK is part of the EC,
> the EC uses the metric system, hence the UK now officially uses the
> metric system.
>
.. and has done "officially" for some time. My local supermarket has
only recently switched to selling meat, cheese, etc., by the kilo
instead of the pound and (even for me - a chemistry graduate who's been
using metric units for many years) it requires a suprising amount of
mental readjustment to think in the "new" units.
> It cost a lot
> of money to convert from the one system to the other. I don't
> suppose the US would take the decision lightly.
>
Well, if the US isn't interested in trading with the rest of the world
it can use whatever units it likes.
Cheers,
Daniel James
Daniel James
> I never said there was. Just as there is nothing English about
> English muffins, nor French about French fries.
>
We have muffins in England that look very much like what are called
"English muffins" in North America (they don't taste quite the same
because of the differences in the flour). I can understand that it is
felt necessary in North America to call them "English muffins" in order
to distingush them from oversized fairy cakes, which you call
"muffins".
They do eat chips in France - by which I mean what you might call
"English chips" not the fried thin slices of potato the you call
"chips" and we call "crisps" - the French just call them "frites",
which is "fries" in French. Is there some other food in America which
is just called "fries" and which needs to be distinguished from
(English) chips by calling the latter "French"?
> My point, which I thought I had made plainly, was that the system of
> measurement involving inches, feet, yeard, ounces, pints, quarts,
> gallons, ETC, is called the English system.
>
Ellen's point - with which I agree entirely - is that it is not
universally recognized by that name. Anyone in England hearing you
refer to the "English system" would assume that you were referring
specifically to the Imperial system as it is known in England - with 20
fluid ounces to the pint, 2240 pounds to the ton, etc.; which I deduce
(from context, and from the ensuing discussion) was not your intention.
Shaw was right: Two nations divided by a common language!
Cheers,
Daniel James
Daniel James
> I haven't heard of "MKS" or "CGS". Where can I
> find out more about this? Why do these two systems ignore units
> of mass, volume, and capacity?
>
The CGS system was the original system of metric units. The MKS system
replaced the CGS system in the years following the 9th General
Conference of Weights and Measures in 1948. When I was at secondary
school (in the 1960s and '70s) we were taught physics using the MKS
system, but some of the textbooks still used the older CGS units. The
'standard' metric units today are those of the MKS system, but are
generally referred to as SI units (French: Systeme Internationale
d'Unities).
The M, K and S of MKS refer to the metre (unit of length), kilogramme
(unit of mass) and second (unit of time). Volume and capacity are
measured on cubic metres, which are implicitly defined by the metre. The
SI also includes four other base units: the Ampere (unit of electrical
current), the Kelvin (unit of temperature), the Candela (unit of
luminous intensity) and the Mole (unit of amount of substance); all
other units needed to express any dimensioned quantity in science can be
derived from these. For example: velocity is measured in metres per
second.
The second is defined by SI (you asked) as the duration of 9.192631770 x
10^9 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between
two hyperfine levels of the fundamental state of the atom of Caesium 133
(Cesium 133 if you're American). The old Imperial definition of the
second was 1/31556925.9747 of the tropical year for 1900, but the new
definition is designed to be indistinguishable from the old (not just
because it's rather difficult to go back to 1900 with a stopwatch to see
how long the year was).
Where do you find out more? I expect there are published proceedings
from the 1948 conference and you could follow up more recent work
through the Science Citation Index, but if you don't need that much
detail you should be able to find some good information in a book of
scientific tables at your local library or a decent bookshop (George's,
if my memory serves me, is the university bookshop in Bristol (or are
they calling themselves Blackwells these days?) and will certainly be
able to recommend a suitable book).
> If a "second" is the same in the two systems you refer to ("MKS" and
> "CGS"), what is it a 3600th part of?
>
An hour?
> If treated as a unit of distance, is it defined in the traditional
> fashion as the second sexagesimal division of a degree, which is
> itself traditionally reckoned at 60 miles? If so, does that mean
> that the "CGS" system is actually using as one of its basic
> measurements a unit based on the English mile? That *would* be
> ironic, but I suspect it's not the case. But what *is* the "CGS"
> second 1/3600th of?
>
A second, in ths sense, is a measurement of angle corresponding to a
1/3600 of a degree. When this angle is used as a subdivision of a great
circle around the globe it corresponds to a distance of 1 nautical mile.
A "great circle", by the way, is a term used in navigation to mean a
circle on the surface of the Earth whose plane passes through the
Earth's centre.
> We now know that a day is not exactly
> 86400 of these traditional seconds, does.... I'm not being
> argumentative -- I'd really like to know.
>
I think the boring bit above with "Caesium" and "Tropical Year for 1900"
may have answered this - if not, ask again!
> > The imperial gallon (and the derived quart and pint) was defined the
> > way it was for some obscure historic reason I suppose.
>
> Errr. You do realise that it's the American gallon that's different
> from the Imperial gallon, rather than the Imperial gallon differing
> from the American gallon? The measures were redefined by the American
> settlers -- why, I don't know, but I doubt if it's particularly
> obscure.
>
Um. I suspect it's not that simple. The gallon is eight pints on both
sides of the pond, but the size of the pint has (apparently) varied
greatly since its first use in the 14th century. Today the (British)
Imperial pint is 20 fl.oz. while the US pint is only 16, but it seems
that 16 fl.oz. has been accepted as the correct size for a pint in some
parts of England at some times in History, so the American settlers may
simply have frozen their definition at an earlier point in time than
the British.
Cheers,
Daniel James
Daniel James
> Since there is no such an official grammar book published by some kind of
> authority in English, (and that is the subject of this thread)
> pretty much everybody can publish such a book, but I was wondering that what
> gives authority to the writer of such a book.
>
What gives authority to the writer of a book on any subject? If the writer's
knowledge and expertise are recognized he will have authority.
If an authority on birds tells us that the robin has red chest plumage we can
verify this by examining robins, if he tells us that the robin has a bright
blue crest we can easily determine that he is wrong and his authority will be
weakened.
Because there is no official body responsible for specifying correct English
we have to regard the subject as an empirical rather than a theoretical
science. In this respect language is rather like ornithology, one cannot
dictate that language *will* be used in a certain way, any more than one can
dictate that robins *will* have bright blue crests; but this does not mean
that it is pointless to write abook about the language, any more than it means
that it is pointless to write about birds.
Cheers,
Daniel James
Bill McCray
>
>There is ample evidence "ain't" is contraction for "am not" -- whether
>people wish to use if is up to them.
Then why do those who use it say "you ain't", "he ain't", "she ain't",
"it ain't", "we ain't", and "they ain't"?
Bill McCray
Lexington, KY
Opinicus
>Um. I suspect it's not that simple. The gallon is eight pints
on both
>sides of the pond, but the size of the pint has (apparently)
varied
>greatly since its first use in the 14th century. Today the
(British)
>Imperial pint is 20 fl.oz. while the US pint is only 16, but it
seems
>that 16 fl.oz. has been accepted as the correct size for a pint
in some
>parts of England at some times in History, so the American
settlers may
>simply have frozen their definition at an earlier point in time
than
>the British.
Isn't there some sort of rhyme that goes "A pint's a pound the
world round"? I always thought it meant that a pint of water
weighed a pound everywhere in the world.
Or was it the price of a pot of beer?
Bob
Istanbul
Petibacsi
>Daniel:
>What gives authority to the writer of a book on any subject?
That is an interesting question, but in some cases it is easy to answer.
For example in biographies, the person whose life is the subject is the
authority. Or a close friend. Or a person with extensive research on him.
Authorithy conmes with either knowledge or
power/position. In the later case it doesn't always mean that the authority is
correct, but he is in a position to publish such a book and we are supposed to
accept his word.
For example if Campomanes the President of the World Chess Association (or
whatever his title is) publishes a book about on the rules of chess, with the
full support of the Chess Association than he is supposed to know
and we are supposed to accept that rules.
Now in the case of birds, I guess there is some kind of body for the
ornitologists that makes bird classification and recognizes new species, so in
this case that is the authority.
But you are right, in the case of English it is more empirical.
Peti
Petibacsi
When I started this thread I only brought up as an example the measuring
units.
The point was that changes can be forced on the public and the public will
accept it (if they don't have other choice) only it is question of time.
Imagine if all the maps, roadsigns here in the US showed only kilometers
instead of miles.
Not to mention speddometers in your car.
Sooner or later (more likely later) people would adopt it, and that would be
the end of the difference.
The same with grammar. If the newspapers, broadcasters start to use a new
term (like CEO, that came from the 1970s) then people soon adopt it, start to
use it and it becomes part of the language.
Peti
John Davies
<tig...@doruk-net.tr> writes
>Isn't there some sort of rhyme that goes "A pint's a pound the
>world round"? I always thought it meant that a pint of water
>weighed a pound everywhere in the world.
An Imperial pint of water weighs 20fl.oz, ie a pound and a quarter, so
the rhyme is wrong.
>
>Or was it the price of a pot of beer?
Extremely unlikely. For a start, the rhyme is unknown in Britain, for
obvious reasons. Secondly, a pint of beer can currently cost anything
between one and a half to three pounds sterling, depending on its
quality and strength, and on the kind of place you drink it in, but when
I first started drinking beer 35 years ago you could get about 20 pints
for a pound. Given the rate of inflation in that period, the window
during which you could get a pint for exactly a pound would have been
very narrow indeed.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
P&DSchultz
That may all be true, but it vacuous. Enterprises which operate in
order to make money, like map makers and newspapers, are unlikely
to force anything on their customers. They are there to serve the
customers, not to make them change to this or that.
And in democratic countries, the people run the government, so they
are the ones who tell the government what kind of signs to put on
the roadsides.
In countries where the government is an oligarchy which controls the
newspapers and makes the maps, it is true that they can control the
citizens' actions, like dogs on a leash. So from that standpoint,
your logic is correct.
//P. Schultz
Writer S
Good question. It fell out of favor at some point, and was abandoned
as "common" or "low-class."
I don't use it -- well, much ;-) -- but I have to confess there is
actually nothing wrong with it.
Bill Bryson gives the subject a well-deserved treatment in one of his
books - "Made In America," I think it was.
>Bill McCray
>Lexington, KY
Writer S
Mizzell) wrote:
>> My point, which I thought I had made plainly, was that the system of
>> measurement involving inches, feet, yeard, ounces, pints, quarts,
>> gallons, ETC, is called the English system.
>>
>
>The point I was making is that if so, it's a regionalism, not an
>English usage. But I suspect that we are talking a cross-purposes.
>
Perhaps. My problem was that you were correcting me on the usage of a
term with which you are apparently unfamiliar.
>
>>
>> Maybe, but that's not the name applied to it.
>
><patient> No. But "English system" isn't the name applied to it
>in England. So it's a regional expression, and a rather odd one,
>IMO.
>
And again, you're trying to tell me it's not the term applied, when I
know for a fact it is, IN THIS COUNTRY. That's all I ever said.
>> >Progress! Don't knock it!
>> >
>>
>> Who's knocking it? Geez! Get a grip!
>>
>
>No need to wax belligerent. Many people here are very resistant to
>the whole idea of belonging to the EC. It can often seem that all
>the changes are negative. When the UK first joined, back when it
>was known as the Common Market, there was a sharp rise in inflation,
>and since then there have been a steady stream of "harmonising"
>directives, which often get people's backs up. The electrical plugs
>effect, however, is generally recognised as A Good Thing. Hence
>my comment on progress.
>
>Try not to take everything so personally. It's very bad for your
>blood pressure. :-)
>
>
When you say such patronizing things as, "Progress! Don't knock it!"
I do get a little unglued. It reads as being very condescending. I'm
a major proponent of progress. I'm also in the real world, where, IN
THIS COUNTRY, people refuse to adopt the metric system.
>> You clearly don't shop in American stores.
>
>Errr...no. It would be a little difficult, from Bristol. You *do*
>realise that I was talking about the effect that membership in the
>EC has had on British use of weights and measurements?
>
Of course. That's why I got frustrated with you trying to apply your
comments to the whole world (apparently), with no direct knowledge of
how things work here.
> > I still buy beer in 12-oz
>> cans, and bananas by the lb. Like it or not, that's how it is.
>
>And very tasty I'm sure they probably are. (I hope you don't
>take them together?)
>
Not unless they're brewed together. I've seen stranger, in Seattle in
particular.
>Seriously, though -- calm down. You're getting yourself worked up
>for no good reason. No one is trying to claim that the metric system
>is in general use in the States, nor do I have any personal view on
>whether it ought to be or not. As I don't live there at present,
>it doesn't have a major impact on my life whether bananas in San Jose
>are sold by the pound or by the kilogram.
>
I was never as worked up as you seem to think. However, I still think
it's condescending to tell someone in another country he's wrong when
he's telling you how things work IN THAT COUNTRY. And that's why I
repeat, for general principle, the system of measurements most people
in this country use is generally referred to as the English system.
>> Doesn't matter. They did pass such legislation. And they did get
>> flak from industry, who flipped them a sort of commercial bird by
>> refusing to make a mass migration.
>>
>
>Ah, you see, that's where my other point comes in. Manufacturers
>here couldn't afford to do that, because it's extremely important
>to them to be able to sell their products in other European countries.
>Not just finished products, like refrigerators and cars, but also
>and even more importantly, the components. So they had no choice
>but to retool so that screws, bolts, and thingamajiggies could all
>be made in the same sizes as those in use on the Continent -- which
>were all metric.
>
Which is why tool kits are always twice as big here. They contain
both English and metric tools. "Just in case."
>> >HTH, HAND
>> Gesundheit.
>
>Now there's another interesting thing. I hardly ever hear
>"gesundheit" in Britain. "God bless" is much more common.
Okay... do people still drive lorries over there? Or have they
started driving trucks? Just curious.
Writer S
<inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> My point, which I thought I had made plainly, was that the system of
>> measurement involving inches, feet, yeard, ounces, pints, quarts,
>> gallons, ETC, is called the English system.
>>
>
>Ellen's point - with which I agree entirely - is that it is not
>universally recognized by that name. Anyone in England hearing you
>refer to the "English system" would assume that you were referring
>specifically to the Imperial system as it is known in England - with 20
>fluid ounces to the pint, 2240 pounds to the ton, etc.; which I deduce
>(from context, and from the ensuing discussion) was not your intention.
>
I tried my best to make it clear to her, and now I have to instruct
you, too.
Okay. IN AMERICA -- now, what did I say? *****IN AMERICA***** --
that system I described is called the English system. I don't give a
hoot in hell what it's called in England, or Australia, or Canada, or
ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD. In America, it's usually called the
English system.
That's all I ever said.
>Shaw was right: Two nations divided by a common language!
>
And didn't Shaw also say something like, "It is impossible for one
Englishman to open his mouth without making another Englishman despise
him?"
Don't give me this "two countries" stuff.
>Cheers,
> Daniel James
>
Writer S
>On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 00:12:17 GMT, pri...@not.given (Writer S) wrote:
>
>
>>Well, of course. Any book is copyright. But grammar is no more
>>"copyrightable" than is history. You can't print a history book
>>describing the Norman Conquest of England, and prevent any other
>>history author from doing anything other than plagiarizing your text.
>
>Poppycock.
>
Intelligent answer, there. Care to elaborate?
Or are you simply a contrarian?
Same person
>Your obscene language and total lack of manners has forced me to put
>you on my "Delete any further messages" list: one I normally reserve
>only for spam advertisers. Who wants to read your childish rubbish.
>
>Charles
Well, then I'll use a different ID for this post.
I responded the way I did because Peta-whatever was being a gadfly,
and he got under my skin. For that I make no apology.
You claimed I was wrong when I said history is not copyrightable, and
than an author has not right to prevent another from writing about the
same subject, and that he (or she) only had the right to prevent
plagiarism. You used the term "poppycock" which, if you have any
level of education, you should realize is also quite offensivwe
(albeit in another language), and childish as well. Plus,you
dismissed my assertion with no supporting citations.
Who's childish now?
I'll say it again: History is what it is. NO ONE can prevent ANYONE
from writing anything that is not a direct plagiarism of his/her work.
Okay, Mr Poppycock, tell me I'm wrong again, and let the world laugh
at you. Or do you have the cajones (oops, those foreign words) to
admit you were wrong?
Charles Riggs
Mizzell) wrote:
>Charles Riggs (ri...@anu.ie) wrote:
>> On 19 Sep 1998 22:27:22 +0100, $news1$@nospam.demon.co.uk (Ellen
>> Mizzell) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> That's why I used the term, "English." That's the name given to
>> >> ounce-pint-quart-gallon, inch-foot-yard-mile, etc Your point is thus
>> >> superfluous.
>> >>
>> >
>> >What point is superfluous to what? There isn't an "English" measuring
>> >system in England. There's Imperial, or there's metric. Both are
>> >different from the US system.
>>
>> Yes, there is indeed an English measuring system. In it the three
>> basic physical quantities are measured in the units of foot, pound and
>> second. It is called the English system in all parts of the world
>> except, perhaps, Great Britain. In the metric system the three
>> corresponding quantities are of course meter, kilogram and second. It
>> is for these reasons that physicists sometimes call the first the FPS
>> system and often call the second the MKS system or CGS system if
>> centimeter, gram and second are the basic units. No sane scientist
>> would calculate in the English system today as, one: conversions among
>> the units are less straightforward than in the logical metric system
>> and two: the English units are defined now in terms of the standard
>> metric units so there is little or no reason to calculate with English
>> units in the first place. The "second" is defined the same way in all
>> systems I know of.
>
>That's interesting. I haven't heard of "MKS" or "CGS". Where can I
>find out more about this?
Nearly any good book on physics. I would recommend Halliday and
Resnick though I am prejudiced since it was the text I used in school
fourteen million years ago. There are more recent good ones I am sure.
> Why do these two systems ignore units
>of mass, volume, and capacity? How can the "second" be defined in
>the same way in both systems, given that it has changed so over
>time? Are you using "second" as a measurement of distance or of
>time?
The abbreviation MKS stands for metre (U.S. meter), kilogram, second:
unit measurements of length, mass and time respectively. From these
traditional three (l, m and t), used since the time of Newton, all
other physical quantities can be derived or defined. Velocity,
acceleration, area, volume, density, pressure, weight and even
electrical charge (though q can be and sometimes is defined apart from
l,m and t): all of them. It is one of the beauties of physics.
Now, you asked about second. It is the most difficult of the three
and, over the years, has had a number of different definitions for
scientists. Today it is universally defined in all systems of
measurement I know of, in terms of the natural periodicity of the
radiation of the cesium-133 atom. That wouldn't help most people, but
it allows for extremely exact time keeping. Denver, Paris and London
all maintain universal time on atomic clocks and now, finally, the
second is well-defined. In times past it has been related to sand
pouring through an hour glass and as a fractional part of the "day"
where day can be, and still is, variously defined.
>Traditionally, AIUI, a "minute" was defined as the 60th part of
>a unit, i.e., the first sexagesimal division, and a "second" was,
>of course, the 3600th part of something-or-other -- the "second"
>sexagesimal division. So a minute was a "prime minute" and a second
>was a "second minute." So the word "second" is not fixed to any
>given physical property in the way that "foot" is, or "pound" is.
In times past, yes. But today, time being the most important of the
three, the second is far better defined than the metre or the kilogram
as I mentioned above. The last two have long been agreed to be those
models keep at Sevres near Paris and even the U.S. Bureau of
Standards followed that convention. In other words, there is an actual
gold metre long rod there as well a one Kg gold mass. Length can now
be defined more accurately as the distance a beam of travels in a
certain fraction of a second since second is so well defined and the
speed of light so accurately measured.
>If a "second" is the same in the two systems you refer to ("MKS" and
>"CGS"), what is it a 3600th part of?
See above.
>If treated as a unit of distance, is it defined in the traditional
>fashion as the second sexagesimal division of a degree, which is
>itself traditionally reckoned at 60 miles? If so, does that mean
>that the "CGS" system is actually using as one of its basic
>measurements a unit based on the English mile? That *would* be
>ironic, but I suspect it's not the case. But what *is* the "CGS"
>second 1/3600th of?
In the centimetre-gram-second system, sometimes used by physicists,
the second is still defined in terms of the aforementioned Cesium
atom.
>If on the other hand it's defined purely as a unit of time, is it defined
>in the traditional fashion as the second sexagesimal division of
>the hour (itself defined as 1/24th of the time taken for the earth
>to complete a revolution)? We now know that a day is not exactly
>86400 of these traditional seconds, does the "CGS" system nevertheless
>cling to the traditional definition, rather than a more precise
>measurement of the earth's revolution? I'm not being argumentative --
>I'd really like to know.
Exactly Ellen. That is why the earlier definitions of second were so
unsatisfactory. The day can be reckoned in a number of ways. I am no
astronomer but there are solar days, sidereal days and something-else
days - all of them of different lengths.
>> As far as I know there is no imperial "system" except in the way GB
>> and Ireland measured liquids (and continue to measure pints of beer).
>
>! Of course there's an Imperial measuring system. Have a look in any
>GCSE maths textbook -- they should be available in Ireland, though
>I'm not clear whether you're in Eire or N.I.
>The Imperial system includes measurements of length/distance (foot,
>etc); of area (square feet, acres, etc); of volume (cubic feet, etc);
>of capacity (pints, etc); and of mass (pounds, stones, tons, etc).
>As you say, all these units are today defined in terms of their
>metric counterparts
>
I am just an American electronics engineer living in Ireland. I
don't know
what GCSE stands for, though I've heard of it, and know very little
about the obsolete imperial system except as it relates to a pint of
Guinness - a subject on which I am quite conversant. However, if there
is an imperial foot I'd be surprised if it is different from the
American foot, now nearly obsolete for any sort of serious
calculations in the world of physics or science in general.
>> The imperial gallon (and the derived quart and pint) was defined the
>> way it was for some obscure historic reason I suppose.
>
>Errr. You do realise that it's the American gallon that's different
>from the Imperial gallon, rather than the Imperial gallon differing
>from the American gallon?
If A does not equal B then B does not equal A. :-)
> The measures were redefined by the American
>settlers -- why, I don't know, but I doubt if it's particularly
>obscure.
Obscure to me. I don't want to argue the virtues of America and
England but I imagine the new settlers wanted to change nearly
anything and everything British. Recently I've met some quite decent
English folks so my opinion of them is in flux. I still prefer Irish
literature and Irish beer though.
>> The British
>> also had a different way from all the rest of the world in the way
>> they used to grade hand tools such as wrenches and sockets. It was
>> called Whitworth. The British were so inconsistent during the
>> conversion process a number of years ago, that I once owned a Triumph
>> motorcycle with metric, English and Whitworth bolts and nuts; hence, I
>> needed sets of all three type wrenches to do the repairs it constantly
>> required!
>>
>
>Illustrating the problems faced by industry when trying to switch to
>a different measuring system. It's quite possible that the extra
>costs imposed by the changeover contributed to the steep decline in
>British manufacturing industry since the seventies, though of course
>there are other factors too.
I would say so. All the world should, must and eventually will use
the SI metric system for the world is becoming a smaller place. John
F. Kennedy know this and that is why he pushed the metric system for
the United States. The push died with him unfortunately.
Charles
Charles Riggs
Mizzell) wrote:
>This is really interesting. Questing further on the net, I learn
>the metre was supposed to be one ten-millionth of the distance
>from the North Pole to the Equator when measured on a straight
>line running along the surface of the earth through Paris.
>
>Also, that Galileo established that a pendulum a little over 39
>inches long (i.e. a metre) would swing through its arc in exactly
>one second.
At the equator - it varies with latitude and can even be used as a way
to measure latitude if you have an accurate stopwatch and are very
patient. I tried it once, averaging a number of measurements, and was
off only a degree. (It varies because the Earth isn't perfectly
spherical and therefore the acceleration due to gravity isn't constant
with latitude.)
>So the two measurements confirm and reinforce one another -- a
>metre is the length a pendulum has to be to swing through its
>arc in one second, and a second is the time it takes for a pendulum
>whose length is equal to one ten-millionth of the distance between
>the North Pole and the Equator (measured on a straight line running
>along the surface of the earth through Paris) to swing through its
>arc.
You've hit upon a problem here. Length and time are fundamental
quantities in physics and their units of measurement must be defined
completely separately. I believe Ptolemy (sp) or one of the Greeks
originally defined metre to be a nice fractional part of what they
then figured to be the circumference of the Earth but this fact
wouldn't be of much use in a laboratory of today.
>(hmmm....wonder how God knew where Paris was going to be? :-)
>
>>
>> > The imperial gallon (and the derived quart and pint) was defined the
>> > way it was for some obscure historic reason I suppose.
>>
>> Errr. You do realise that it's the American gallon that's different
>> from the Imperial gallon, rather than the Imperial gallon differing
>> from the American gallon? The measures were redefined by the American
>> settlers -- why, I don't know, but I doubt if it's particularly
>> obscure.
>>
>
>Apparently, the unit that's now known as a gallon in the US was
>called the Queen Anne wine-gallon in Britain. Perhaps the settlers
>had wine containers available to measure with and so it was more
>convenient to use that.
Interesting.
>I also learned that the US is now the only country in the world
>not fully committed to adopting the metric system.
>
>URL=http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/OTHERREFERENCE/WEIGHTSandMEASURES/MetricHistory.html
>
>Well worth a quick surf.
Charles
Charles Riggs
Mizzell) wrote:
>I'm quite happy with the SI definition, because how after all could I
>possibly be otherwise? :-) But why did the Imperial definition work
>out to 1/31556915.9747? 1900 was a leap year, yes?
>
> 366 x 24 x 60 x 60 = 31622400
>
>Or does "tropical year" mean something different?
>Yes, it's Blackwells now. I'll have a look -- this is all very
>interesting.
>
>
>>
>> > If a "second" is the same in the two systems you refer to ("MKS" and
>> > "CGS"), what is it a 3600th part of?
>> >
>>
>> An hour?
>
>Well, that was the point I was trying to make, but I messed it up by
>confusing the systems when I asked the question.
>
>Charles said that the second was defined in the same way in all
>the systems he knew of. That was what I was questioning -- because
>why would the metric system (or MKS) define a second in terms of
>the hour, which isn't precise and doesn't relate to any other
>metric units? And apparently it doesn't, according to what you
>say above.
>
>So the second is not defined the same in all systems.
How do you come to that conclusion? Not from anything I said or Daniel
said that I can see.
Charles
Charles Riggs
Mizzell) wrote:
>It depends what you mean by a system of measurement. Clearly, in
>traditional systems which used the foot and the pound, the second
>would have been defined as 1/3600th of an hour, rather than as
>"the duration of 9.192631770 x 10^9 periods of the radiation
>corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the
>fundamental state of the atom of Caesium 133" (thank you, Daniel :-)
>
>So, if all systems now use the same definition for the second,
>the older systems must have been altered to incorporate the
>modern definition.
>
>Daniel commented that "The old Imperial definition of the
>second was 1/31556925.9747 of the tropical year for 1900".
>So in that system of measurement (the Imperial system as it
>existed at that date) the second is defined differently from
>the way it's defined in e.g. the MKS system.
>
>I think what you are saying is that all systems in use today
>have been updated to incorporate the modern definition of a
>second. To me, however, the older systems (the ones using
>the traditional definition of a second) still exist, they're
>just not in use any longer. Qualification becomes necessary,
>so that one needs to refer not just to "the Imperial system",
>but to "the Imperial system as established by the Weights and
>Measures Act of such-and-such a date".
Ok, I give you that one. You remind me in this post of one of my very
literal minded friends on one of the math groups!
Charles
Charles Riggs
wrote:
I have the courage to state that I am seldom wrong. The jury is still
out on you yourself. I used the word "poppycock" correctly in
response to your post - it's application was self-evident and needed
no explanation I thought. It was the proper word. Your uses of the
word "fuck" is never proper in a news group subscribed to by the
general public which includes children as well as ladies and
gentlemen. BTW, do you have the courage to use a proper email address
as most of the rest of us do?
Charles
Charles Riggs
Mizzell) wrote:
>> Exactly Ellen. That is why the earlier definitions of second were so
>> unsatisfactory. The day can be reckoned in a number of ways. I am no
>> astronomer but there are solar days, sidereal days and something-else
>> days - all of them of different lengths.
>
>Hmmmm. I didn't think it was a question of how it was reckoned -- I
>thought it was indeed variable. Otherwise we wouldn't need leap
>seconds, surely?
Oh no! I can assure you the second is neither variable nor does it
suffer any longer from having several different definitions. Surely,
leap seconds are added or subtracted to make the year end at just the
right time. Think what would happen to space flight calculations if
the second were indeed variable, unless you were talking of
relativistic effects when one approaches the speed of light but I
don't believe your study of physics is quite to that point yet. I'm
trying to be nice; really! :-)
>> >! Of course there's an Imperial measuring system. Have a look in any
>> >GCSE maths textbook -- they should be available in Ireland, though
>> >I'm not clear whether you're in Eire or N.I.
>> I am just an American electronics engineer living in Ireland. I
>> don't know
>> what GCSE stands for, though I've heard of it, and know very little
>> about the obsolete imperial system except as it relates to a pint of
>> Guinness - a subject on which I am quite conversant. However, if there
>> is an imperial foot I'd be surprised if it is different from the
>> American foot, now nearly obsolete for any sort of serious
>> calculations in the world of physics or science in general.
>>
>
>GCSE exams are the public exams which most schoolchildren sit at
>the end of compulsory schooling (age 16). I don't remember what
>the initials stand for. They serve as the first level of recognised
>qualifications, i.e. employers who take on school leavers (those who
>leave school at 16) will want to know their GCSE results and will
>do their hiring largely on the basis of those results. GCSEs also
>serve as the first entry barrier for children who want to do A-Levels,
>which are the second level of public examination, taken after a
>further, voluntary two years of schooling. Schools will only be
>willing to accept for A-Level study those children who have achieved
>reasonably good results at GCSE. The A-Levels, in turn, serve both
>as the second level of recognised qualifications (i.e., good A-Level
>results help in the job market) and also as the principal barrier to
>entry to university -- i.e., universities offer places largely on
>the basis of A-Level results, except for Oxbridge, who have their
>own measures of value.
It all seems quite complicated! I'm glad I took my schooling in
America I think.
>The Imperial foot is about .31 of a metre.
Umm...sounds like exactly like an American foot. Are you sure the
British actually call it Imperial?! Would they ask the lumber man for
a board 12 Imperial feet long?
>I think it's likely the Imperial system is in use all around you. You may
>regard it as the American system, but those who are selling you
>your groceries probably don't see it that way. :-) However, you're
>correct in calling it obsolete. It's certainly on its way out.
No, most food here is now sold using the metric system - even the
Guinness; although it is still available in pints (yes, imperial
ones).
>> >> The imperial gallon (and the derived quart and pint) was defined the
>> >> way it was for some obscure historic reason I suppose.
>> >
>> >Errr. You do realise that it's the American gallon that's different
>> >from the Imperial gallon, rather than the Imperial gallon differing
>> >from the American gallon?
>>
>> If A does not equal B then B does not equal A. :-)
>>
>
>That's not apodictical. A and B may differ from one another, but is
>A a variant of B, or is B a variant of A, or are they independent
>of each other? When I wrote the above, I was suggesting that B
>(the US gallon) was a variant of A (the Imperial gallon) rather
>than A being a variant of B as you seemed to be implying. However,
>as I posted subsequently, neither turns out to be the case -- B
>is based on a different measure, the Queen Anne wine-gallon.
I don't want to make a big deal out of this because it's not
important. I never suggested that the Imperial gallon was a variant of
the U.S. gallon: that would be an impossibility. I was only responding
to the logic of your earlier statement, above, that follows the
"errr".
Charles
Pk2222
Charles wrote:
> Surely,
>leap seconds are added or subtracted to make the year end at just the
>right time.
There is a wonderful discussion of leap year calucations, down to the second,
in the Navy Department's atomic clock web site. I don't remember the address,
offhand, but it's mentioned in the Internet TIME protocol documentation.
pk
Bill McCray
<inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Well, if the US isn't interested in trading with the rest of the world
>it can use whatever units it likes.
>
metric units many years ago. It's only in communicating with the
American public that the company has to use inches and pounds. I think
most industries here do the same, at least those with international
markets. I could be wrong.
Why don't the American people want to change? They don't see any
benefit from learning a new system when the current one seems perfectly
adequate.
I learned the metric system back in the 50s and can think and work in
either system quite well, even converting between them. But the one
thing that I have in feet and pounds that I don't have in metric is a
feel for the magnitude of a measurement. 100 kilometers just has no
meaning for me until I convert it to 62 miles. Then I have a feel for
how far it is. 20 degree C is just a number, but 68 degrees F I know is
a fairly comfortable temperature. I know about how big an acre is, but
have no idea how big an are is. And as long as I have to deal with
people every day in feet, pounds, acres, etc., I will never gain the
experience to have a feel for metric measures.
Personally, I wish the government would mandate metric for everyday use.
I know it's a simpler system and that I would become accustomed to it.
The one question I have about metric is why time wasn't converted to a
decimal system? I suspect the answer is that the rotation of the Earth,
the revolution of the Moon, and the revolution of the Earth are
basically incompatible quantities. It's a poor design.
Bill McCray
Lexington, KY
Yet the same
>
>I have the courage to state that I am seldom wrong.
Whoa, what a ringing endorsement.
The jury is still
>out on you yourself.
Well, says you.
I used the word "poppycock" correctly in
>response to your post - it's application was self-evident and needed
>no explanation I thought.
Then I invite you - no, I ***DEFY*** you - to parse my ORIGINAL
statement and tell me wherein lies the error.
It was the proper word. Your uses of the
>word "fuck" is never proper in a news group subscribed to by the
>general public which includes children as well as ladies and
>gentlemen.
"Uses"? I used it exactly once. Do you have trouble balancing your
checkbook?
BTW, do you have the courage to use a proper email address
>as most of the rest of us do?
>
Sure, but when I am attacked for being right - which you have done - I
see no reason to do so.
Come on, now, parse out my original post and show me the error.
And btw, poppycock is extremely rude in Dutch. But then, the Brits
have always taken delight in insulting the Dutch, haven't they?
Charles Riggs
wrote:
Oh, now you actually have insulted me. I am not a Brit!!! However, if
I were I wouldn't take delight in insulting the Dutch: it would be
like shooting fish in a barrel. I would parse your offending paragraph
if I could find it; it wasn't particularly memorable.
Charles
Charles Riggs
Mizzell) wrote:
>> Oh no! I can assure you the second is neither variable nor does it
>> suffer any longer from having several different definitions. Surely,
>> leap seconds are added or subtracted to make the year end at just the
>> right time. Think what would happen to space flight calculations if
>> the second were indeed variable, unless you were talking of
>> relativistic effects when one approaches the speed of light but I
>> don't believe your study of physics is quite to that point yet. I'm
>> trying to be nice; really! :-)
>
>Not the second, the day.
No again: the day is as well defined as the second. It is the year
that has the problem.
>> It all seems quite complicated! I'm glad I took my schooling in
>> America I think.
>
>Yes, it's probably just as well.
I believe there was a tiny insult contained therein, but I'll let it
slide. :-)
>> >The Imperial foot is about .31 of a metre.
>>
>> Umm...sounds like exactly like an American foot.
>
>Oh, I thought the feet in America were English feet. :-)
But the best feats in America are the Irish ones!
>> Are you sure the
>> British actually call it Imperial?!
>
>No, I'm making it up.
LOL!
>> Would they ask the lumber man for
>> a board 12 Imperial feet long?
>
>No. Nor for one 12 metric meters long.
Tooch Eh.
Charles
Charles Riggs
Excellent post, Bill. Why? Because I agreed with all of it! I've
asked many Americans the same question you pose "Why don't you want to
change?" The usual answer is "It's too hard to learn the conversions".
As you point out that is true to a point. It is only when we learn to
think metric than no conversions at all will be necessary, other than
shifting a decimal point. I find litre just as acceptable as quart but
that is probably because they are so nearly the same. I convert pounds
to kilograms before telling the butcher how much minced beef I'd like
but I no longer convert Celsius to Fahrenheit, perhaps because we hear
the day's temperature so often. So, I'm only half-converted myself.
I say mandate conversion. The pain will only last one generation and
all the children will be nicely metricized.
The question about time is an interesting one. Twelve is a very nice
number but I'm not sure that is the reason the whoevers placed 12
hours on the clock face and 24 hours in the day. Twelve is nice
because it divides in two and also into four equal parts, as does
sixty. Ten doesn't have that property. That's a somewhat silly
argument and I am curious to know the correct answer.
Charles
Opinicus
<36053fb4...@netnews.mis.net>...
>The one question I have about metric is why time wasn't
converted to a
>decimal system? I suspect the answer is that the rotation of
the Earth,
>the revolution of the Moon, and the revolution of the Earth are
>basically incompatible quantities. It's a poor design.
I think the French tried introducing a decimal system for time
during the Revolutionary period. Didn't last, as I recall.
The old National Lampoon had a spoof about the introduction of a
decimal-based time system in the US many years ago. The title
was something like "It's [xxxx.xxx.xx.xx]. Do you know where
your children are?" I must try and find it.
Bob
Istanbul
Petibacsi
>Charles:
>No again: the day is as well defined as the second. It is the year
>that has the problem.
I see no problem with the definition. A year is the time when the Earth
orbits the Sun once.
The problem is not with the definition, but that this timemeasurement (year)
is not an exact multiplicity of days, because it is 365.24 something.
Peti
Charles Riggs
What I meant. One needn't mess with the second or the day in such a
manner. In other words, we call the year 365.25 days long when it
isn't, so periodic adjustments are necessary.
Charles
Daniel James
> Nope. A lorry is still a lorry. A very common phrase for stolen
> goods is "It fell off the back of a lorry."
>
On the other hand we (here in Britain, he added quickly lest anyone
misunderstand <grin>) do call long-haul lorry drivers "truckers" - I
suppose it's just a convenient term?
Cheers,
Daniel James
Daniel James
> Okay. IN AMERICA -- now, what did I say? *****IN AMERICA***** --
> that system I described is called the English system.
>
As Ellen has already pointed out: you may have known that you were
talking only about America, but you didn't _say_ that. It's not obvious
to readers of this (or any other) newsgroup what part of the world you
are writing from, nor is it obvious whether your remarks about language
were intended to be universally true, or true only in your own area.
These things DO matter - your remarks were at best confusing and at
worst misleading because you neglected to mention that you were
commenting only on American usage.
When you post to a newsgroup you have a responsibility to write only
things that you believe to be true within the context that you write
them. If you make an error, or lie (which I'm _not_ suggesting you did,
by the way) you must expect other people to correct you; if you neglect
to mention the context in which you remarks apply then you may also
expect to quizzed or corrected about it. Most people would apologize and
learn from their mistakes.
Welcome to the internet! You can correspond with other people as close
to you as the far side of the world, or as far away as the next street!
> I don't give a
> hoot in hell what it's called in England, or Australia, or Canada, or
> ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD. In America, it's usually called the
> English system.
>
You could have saved several of us a bit of trouble if you'd mentioned
that earlier.
You may not give a hoot. I find it interesting to note how usage differs
from one English-speaking country to another.
> That's all I ever said.
>
It's what you *didn't* say that started this discussion.
> And didn't Shaw also say something like, "It is impossible for one
> Englishman to open his mouth without making another Englishman despise
> him?"
>
Probably, sounds like Shaw.
> Don't give me this "two countries" stuff.
>
I was being humourous, or at least ironic (as was Shaw).
Cheers,
Daniel James
"Oh, Irony. We don't use that here." - Steve Martin, Roxanne.
Daniel James
> Umm...sounds like exactly like an American foot. Are you sure the
> British actually call it Imperial?! Would they ask the lumber man for
> a board 12 Imperial feet long?
>
Actually we Brits buy wood (timber, not lumber) in metric units - though
the lengths available all seem to be multiples of 0.3m, for, er,
"historical reasons"!
Maybe the answer to your question is "No, because we buy timber in metric
feet"?
Seriously: We do call it the Imperial system to distinguish it from other
systems, but there is no need to refer to a foot as an imperial foot
(though it would not be incorrect to do so) because there is no danger of
confusing it with any other kind of foot (my quip above about "metric
feet" notwithstanding).
Cheers,
Daniel James
Daniel James
> Hmmmm. I didn't think it was a question of how it was reckoned -- I
> thought it was indeed variable. Otherwise we wouldn't need leap
> seconds, surely?
>
Seconds are not variable, as such, but have been defined in different
ways, in the past, with slightly different results.
We need leap seconds for exactly the same reason that we need leap
years. A year - a complete orbit of the Earth around the Sun - is not
an exact number of days. If we didn't adjust by adding extra days in
leap years the calendar year would be shorter than the actual year, and
31st December would slowly creep through the seasons from its proper
position near midwinter (in the Northern hemisphere - midsummer in the
Southern) through autumn (or fall, in North America) to summer. Adding
one day in four years doesn't give quite the right correction but when
the rule that centuries are not leap-years unless divisible by 400 is
included the result is very close. Leap seconds are just fine
adjustment.
> GCSE exams .... I don't remember what
> the initials stand for.
>
I'm too old to have taken GCSEs (we had exams called "O levels"
(Ordinary level exams), as opposed to "A levels" (Advanced level exams)
taken at 18), but I believe it stands for General Certificate of
Secondary Education.
Cheers,
Daniel James
Daniel James
of sensible stuff...
Nice post, Bill. I agree.
> The one question I have about metric is why time wasn't converted to a
> decimal system?
>
As a complete aside: There was - some time in the 18th Century, I think
- a movement to change the way angles were measured from a system in
which 360 degrees make a whole circle and 90 degrees make a right angle
to one with 400 degrees in a circle and 100 in a right angle. This
system was called the "Centigrade" system - causing confusion with the
other Centigrade system used for measuring temperatures. That is one of
the reasons that the name of the temperature unit was changed from the
degree centigrade to the Celsius (note: the unit is called a Celsius,
NOT a "degree Celsius").
Oh, and I suppose I should add for the benefit of those that don't know
that the SI-approved unit for the measurement of angle is the radian,
which is defined so that 2 pi radians make a circle.
Cheers,
Daniel James
Daniel James
> Yes, I follow. Very elegant. I never heard of the Candela before.
> There seems to have been a certain failure of the imagination when
> that one was named. :-)
>
I note your smiley, but ... given that the Candela replaced the older
unit which was the 'candle power' or simply 'candle' I suspect that
the choice of name was driven as much by a desire for a name that
would be readily reconized while being different from the old unit name
as by any failure of the imagination.
I suppose they could have called it the Stefan - after Josef Stefan, in
recognition of his law of radiation.
Incidentally, my little book of tables dating from 1971 notes that 1
candela is equal to 0.982 international candles. This is from
the section headed "The British or FPS system" - FPS refers to the
basic units of the imperial system which were the foot, pound, and
second.
So, an "international candle" was a "British" unit? Is that "Imperial"
or what? :-)
Cheers,
Daniel James
Daniel James
> Isn't there some sort of rhyme that goes "A pint's a pound the
> world round"? I always thought it meant that a pint of water
> weighed a pound everywhere in the world.
>
I believe there is, and it probably does. That doesn't make it TRUE,
though. I've also heard "A pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter",
which is true under the imperial system (as used in England) but not
under what I now understand is known as the "English" system (as used
only in North Amrica).
> Or was it the price of a pot of beer?
>
Beer has only become that expensive (here in England, he added quickly
lest anyone misunderstand <yawn>) in the last ten years, or so. In the
"affluent" South-East of England a pint in a pub will usually cost
between UKP1.5 and UKP2 (depending on the brand and strength of the
beer and the greed of the publican), prices are usually lower in the
north of England. There are still occasional promotions (new pub
opening, etc.) at which a pint of beer is offered for UKP0.99.
Cheers,
Daniel James
janelaw
Funny you mention beer. My only experience with the Imperial
system has been with beer. When I was a teen in the U.S. in the
70's, you could get G.I.Q.'s (grand imperial quarts) of beer.
It was much cheaper, like getting a large bottle of Coke instead
of individual cans.
There was a snob factor involved, though. Recently, I asked my
husband to pick up big bottle of a beer I might like at the
liquor store. Horrified, he refused, saying that one can only
drink GIQ's out of a brown paper bag in an alley. He was
absolutely speechless when I dragged him off to see the
microbrew collection at the liquor store. At the store near us
there are hundreds of beers available in quarts (as opposed to
dozens of brands in six-packs). They range in price from about
$2US to $14US.
Now that I think of it, those bottles are probably litres now,
aren't they? See what happens? Go metric, and beer costs $14 a
bottle.
Jane
Charlie the Rigg axed for it
>
>Oh, now you actually have insulted me. I am not a Brit!!! However, if
>I were I wouldn't take delight in insulting the Dutch: it would be
>like shooting fish in a barrel. I would parse your offending paragraph
>if I could find it; it wasn't particularly memorable.
>
>Charles
Glad to accomodate.
Here it is, in its entirety:
Well, of course. Any book is copyright. But grammar is no more
"copyrightable" than is history. You can't print a history book
describing the Norman Conquest of England, and prevent any other
history author from doing anything other than plagiarizing your text.
What's wrong with that?
And I submit it was memorable, or you wouldn't have gone off on it
like you did.
Parse it! I await your identification of problems.
P&DSchultz
> >The one question I have about metric is why time wasn't converted to a
> >the revolution of the Moon, and the revolution of the Earth are
> >basically incompatible quantities. It's a poor design.
> >
> The question about time is an interesting one. Twelve is a very nice
> number but I'm not sure that is the reason the whoevers placed 12
> hours on the clock face and 24 hours in the day. ...
Eight days is too long to wait for the weekend to come, so a 10-day
week will never gain acceptance. A 12-day week would be even worse.
//P. Schultz
Robert Lieblich
>
> In answer to the question posed in the title of this thread--I am the one who
> makes the rules of English grammar. If you have any questions about it, you
> may contact me.
Please, sir, what is the English equivalent of the Greek aorist?
And how many octopuses do you bake in an "octopi"?
And is a "full monty" fulsomer than a "full nelson"?
> If you have any complaints, save them. I don't claim to be fair; my rules are
> admittedly arbitrary. I make them according to my own personal whim.
Man, your pronouns need a lot of work. Talk about whim!
> If you'd like a rule changed, deleted, or added, we may be able to negotiate.
> For the right price, we can perhaps work something out.
Fifty bucks if we can adopt the BEV version of "be".
BTW, I once offered to make a new set of rules for Finnish. Negotiations
were going well until they figured out that the only word I know in
Finnish is "Sibelius."
Bob Lieblich
Patronius
In answer to the question posed in the title of this thread--I am the one who
makes the rules of English grammar. If you have any questions about it, you
may contact me.
If you have any complaints, save them. I don't claim to be fair; my rules are
admittedly arbitrary. I make them according to my own personal whim.
If you'd like a rule changed, deleted, or added, we may be able to negotiate.
Charles Riggs
axed for it) wrote:
>Glad to accomodate.
>
>Here it is, in its entirety:
>
>Well, of course. Any book is copyright. But grammar is no more
>"copyrightable" than is history. You can't print a history book
>describing the Norman Conquest of England, and prevent any other
>history author from doing anything other than plagiarizing your text.
Thank you.
I have no problem with the first two sentences. The third would be all
right too if it read 'Grammar is not "copyrightable" '. It's the last
sentence I objected to and I won't use that funny sounding word you
found offensive! You are in effect saying that an author must commit
the crime of plagiary no matter what he writes (unless there is
something about that particular subject, the Norman Conquest, that
makes it impossible for an author to come up with original ideas or
conclusions about it). Am I reading it wrongly?
Charles
Charles Riggs
At what price would you change the rule stating I must say "It is I"
to "It's me"?
Me
Charles Riggs
<inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Or was it the price of a pot of beer?
>>
>
>Beer has only become that expensive (here in England, he added quickly
>lest anyone misunderstand <yawn>) in the last ten years, or so. In the
>"affluent" South-East of England a pint in a pub will usually cost
>between UKP1.5 and UKP2 (depending on the brand and strength of the
>beer and the greed of the publican), prices are usually lower in the
>north of England. There are still occasional promotions (new pub
>opening, etc.) at which a pint of beer is offered for UKP0.99.
>
>Cheers,
> Daniel James
A pint is 1.95 Irish pounds (that's about three dollars for the
American readers) in the West and in much of Ireland and 2.35 or so in
Dublin. Occasionally, during a Guinness promotion at a particular pub,
one or more pints will be free.
Charles
Charles Riggs
Mizzell) wrote:
>Charles Riggs (ri...@anu.ie) wrote:
>> On 21 Sep 1998 21:06:24 +0100, $news1$@nospam.demon.co.uk (Ellen
>> Mizzell) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Oh no! I can assure you the second is neither variable nor does it
>> >> suffer any longer from having several different definitions. Surely,
>> >> leap seconds are added or subtracted to make the year end at just the
>> >> right time. Think what would happen to space flight calculations if
>> >> the second were indeed variable, unless you were talking of
>> >> relativistic effects when one approaches the speed of light but I
>> >> don't believe your study of physics is quite to that point yet. I'm
>> >> trying to be nice; really! :-)
>> >
>> >Not the second, the day.
>>
>> No again: the day is as well defined as the second. It is the year
>> that has the problem.
>>
>>
>
>That's meaningless. The second is a convention; the day reflects
>the duration of a cosmic event. You can define it till the cows
>come home but you won't force reality to conform with your
>definitions. Luckily, the keepers of the clocks don't suffer
>from such hubris. I followed PK2222's suggestion and visited
>the US Naval Observatory site (http://tycho.usno.navy.mil).
>Here is a quote from the very interesting article on leap
>seconds:
>
>"The Earth is constantly undergoing a deceleration caused by the
>braking action of the tides. Through the use of ancient observations
>of eclipses, it is possible to determine the deceleration of the Earth
>to be roughly 1.5-2 milliseconds per day per century. This is an
>effect which causes the Earth's rotational time to slow with respect to the
>atomic clock time. Since it has been nearly 1 century since the
>defining epoch (i.e. the ninety year difference between 1990 and 1900), the
>difference is roughly 2 milliseconds per day. Other factors also
>affect the Earth, some in unpredictable ways, so that it is necessary to
>monitor the Earth's rotation continuously."
>
>Thanks for the pointer, PK2222 -- an excellent site indeed.
Perhaps you should stick with English and avoid discussing science
until you learn more about it before calling my statements
meaningless. The day is exactly 86400 seconds in duration as measured
by any decent 24-hour clock. There are other types of days, such as
the Solar Day where the duration is slightly different but I don't
want to further confuse you.
Charles
Charles Riggs
I was trying to be humorous and was maintaining that a foot is a foot
is a foot. In America, a foot is still an English foot, again for
historical reasons. Or am I wrong, lest someone jump on me. Again.
Charles
Charles Riggs
<inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> And didn't Shaw also say something like, "It is impossible for one
>> Englishman to open his mouth without making another Englishman despise
>> him?"
>>
>
>Probably, sounds like Shaw.
>I was being humourous, or at least ironic (as was Shaw).
>
>Cheers,
> Daniel James
It was said in the musical "My Fair Lady" by, I believe, Henry Higgins
and Shaw may well have originally written it in "Pygmalion".
Charles
Charles Riggs
<inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <36053fb4...@netnews.mis.net>, Bill McCray wrote a lot
>of sensible stuff...
>
>Nice post, Bill. I agree.
>
>> The one question I have about metric is why time wasn't converted to a
>> decimal system?
>>
>
>As a complete aside: There was - some time in the 18th Century, I think
>- a movement to change the way angles were measured from a system in
>which 360 degrees make a whole circle and 90 degrees make a right angle
>to one with 400 degrees in a circle and 100 in a right angle. This
>system was called the "Centigrade" system - causing confusion with the
>other Centigrade system used for measuring temperatures. That is one of
>the reasons that the name of the temperature unit was changed from the
>degree centigrade to the Celsius (note: the unit is called a Celsius,
>NOT a "degree Celsius").
>
>Oh, and I suppose I should add for the benefit of those that don't know
>that the SI-approved unit for the measurement of angle is the radian,
>which is defined so that 2 pi radians make a circle.
>
>Cheers,
> Daniel James
The 400 units in a circle convention still exists though I don't know
who uses it. There are 400 grads in a circle and 100 grads in a right
angle.
Charles
Charles Riggs
Mizzell) wrote:
>Daniel James (inte...@nospam.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>> In article <6u51q0$o...@tictac.demon.co.uk>, Ellen Mizzell wrote:
>> > Hmmmm. I didn't think it was a question of how it was reckoned -- I
>> > thought it was indeed variable. Otherwise we wouldn't need leap
>> > seconds, surely?
>> >
>>
>> Seconds are not variable, as such, but have been defined in different
>> ways, in the past, with slightly different results.
>
>I'm a little baffled as to why both of you misread what I posted.
>Charles said that the day could be reckoned in a number of ways,
>I replied that I didn't think it was a matter of how it was
>reckoned, I thought it was indeed variable. To me that seems
>clearly to say what I meant, i.e., that days vary in length.
>
>Please note I have the US Navy on my side here. :-)
I hope the US Navy is on my side as well since I worked for it for
many years and I will say (and it will agree) that you are correct in
saying the day is variable if you are referring to the definition of
day as a full rotation of the earth (I believe that is called a solar
day). Days are gradually getting longer as the earth slows down and
there are undoubtedly some small wobble effects that slightly vary the
solar days length from day to day, but the day as measured by a 24
hour atomic clock is exact to many decimal points of accuracy and of
unvarying duration.
How did the group ever get on this topic?
Charles
Patronius
>At what price would you change the rule stating I must say "It is I"
>to "It's me"?
I'm in a good mood today. That's a freebie. :)
George F. Hardy
OK with me if you want to establish your ebonics credentials.
GFH
Jeff Chapman
>On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 22:11:35 GMT, pri...@not.given (Charlie the Rigg
>axed for it) wrote:
>>Glad to accomodate.
>>Here it is, in its entirety:
>>
>>Well, of course. Any book is copyright. But grammar is no more
>>"copyrightable" than is history. You can't print a history book
>>describing the Norman Conquest of England, and prevent any other
>>history author from doing anything other than plagiarizing your text.
>
>Thank you.
>I have no problem with the first two sentences. The third would be all
>right too if it read 'Grammar is not "copyrightable" '.
I counted on you to be pickier than that, Charles. "Any book is
copyright" is an abominable sentence, since "copyright" is a noun
rather than an adjective. Furthermore, the statement is inaccurate,
since many books are not protected by copyright.
Jeff (aka Ninj)
http://www.infiltration.org