Noon or 12 noon?
Magdalena Bassett
form is proper and why?
Thanks
Magdalena Bassett
Robert Lipton
'Noon' is sufficient. "Twelve Noon" may be mandated in some styles.
Bob
Magdalena Bassett
Thanks, Robert,
I need to back up the theory with some legitimate online site links on
the subject. Can you help?
Thanks
Magdalena Bassett
Mike Oliver
> I see about an equal usage of the word noon alone vs 12 noon. Which
> form is proper and why?
As Bob says, "noon" by itself is fine. The phrase "12 noon" arises
when you want to refer to the time as 12, and you don't know
whether to call it A.M. or P.M. Neither A.M. nor P.M. is correct;
it's 12 noon. One second earlier is 11:59:59 A.M.; one second
later is 12:00:01 P.M.
The best way around this problem is to switch to 24-hour time,
as has largely already occurred in Europe.
Pan
wrote:
>I see about an equal usage of the word noon alone vs 12 noon. Which
>form is proper and why?
Both, in my opinion.
Michael
To reply by email, please take out the TRASH (so to speak). Personal messages only, please!
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>I see about an equal usage of the word noon alone vs 12 noon. Which
>form is proper and why?
Both are correct. 12 noon gives the time more emphasis. You can
emphasize it even more by saying high noon, as in "The bandits were
hanged at high noon."
Charles Riggs
perchprism
"Mike Oliver" <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:3C56114E...@math.ucla.edu...
> Magdalena Bassett wrote:
>
> > I see about an equal usage of the word noon alone vs 12 noon. Which
> > form is proper and why?
>
> As Bob says, "noon" by itself is fine. The phrase "12 noon" arises
> when you want to refer to the time as 12, and you don't know
> whether to call it A.M. or P.M. Neither A.M. nor P.M. is correct;
> it's 12 noon. One second earlier is 11:59:59 A.M.; one second
> later is 12:00:01 P.M.
It seems we like to get a number when we hear a time. "Noon" means "12:00,"
but it also means things less precise, like midday and noontime, so the "12"
is needed. It's like saying "noon on the dot."
> The best way around this problem is to switch to 24-hour time,
> as has largely already occurred in Europe.
Which makes it best, bien sūr. I've been wondering--can you guys read a
24-hour dial clock without markings on it from a distance, at a glance? You
can a 12-hour one.
--
Perchprism
(southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia)
Mark Barratt
wrote:
>"Mike Oliver" <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote
>> The best way around this problem is to switch to 24-hour time,
>> as has largely already occurred in Europe.
I don't know that the 24-hour clock is any more used in expressing the
time in Europe than it is in the US. Wherever there might be
ambiguity, such as train timetables or the like, times will be
expressed in 24 hour format. Ask people on the street at four o'clock
in the afternoon what the time is, however, and I'd be surprised to
get the answer "16 hours" in either England or Belgium. I've heard
that it's considered more formally polite in France to answer in this
manner, but I'm sure that you'd mostly just hear "quatre heurs".
There might be more of a tendency to use 24-hour notation on notices
and the like: "Live Music here weds 4th 20:00" but I'm sure some
people in the US must do that, don't they?
>Which makes it best, bien sūr. I've been wondering--can you guys read a
>24-hour dial clock without markings on it from a distance, at a glance? You
>can a 12-hour one.
A 24-hour dial clock, huh? You *are* kidding, aren't you, Perch?
Mike Barnes
>I've been wondering--can you guys read a
>24-hour dial clock without markings on it from a distance, at a glance? You
>can a 12-hour one.
Assuming you're serious (perhaps that's a mistake), no, obviously we
can't. But 24-hour clock dials are pretty rare, even outside the USA.
Few of us need a clock to tell us whether it's a.m. or p.m.
The only 24-hour dial clock I can remember showed sidereal time. This
was before the invention of the digital clock as we know it.
--
Mike Barnes
Donna Richoux
> There might be more of a tendency to use 24-hour notation on notices
> and the like: "Live Music here weds 4th 20:00" but I'm sure some
> people in the US must do that, don't they?
No, sorry, they never do. It's 8 PM. I think the military is still the
only user of the 24 hour clock in the US, although now someone will come
along and report that it's used in some other industry.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Apurbva Chandra Senray
> Neither A.M. nor P.M. is correct; it's 12 noon. One second earlier is
> 11:59:59 A.M.; one second later is 12:00:01 P.M.
12 p.m. is correct for noon and 12 a.m. is correct for midnight.
> The best way around this problem is to switch to 24-hour time,
> as has largely already occurred in Europe.
Problem? Uh ... what problem?
perchprism
"Mike Barnes" <mi...@senrab.com> wrote in message
news:1aCuHXAN...@senrab.com...
I was serious. I was under the impression that some countries in the
aforementioned Europe often use a 24-hour dial. I don't remember having seen
one, though, but I haven't been everywhere, either.
Mike Oliver
> but I haven't been everywhere, either.
Oh, I have. Why, I wuz totin' muh pack, down that
dusty Winemucca road....
Mike Oliver
> Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote in message news:<3C56114E...@math.ucla.edu>...
> > Neither A.M. nor P.M. is correct; it's 12 noon. One second earlier is
> > 11:59:59 A.M.; one second later is 12:00:01 P.M.
>
> 12 p.m. is correct for noon and 12 a.m. is correct for midnight.
No, it isn't.
Bob Stahl
>I see about an equal usage of the word noon alone
>vs 12 noon. Which form is proper and why?
My opinion is that of the two, "noon" alone is preferable in informal
usage and most writing. "Twelve noon" is redundant and conceptually
awkward, but useful in discussing everyday events that fall on the hour.
NIST Time and Frequency Division
"Are noon and midnight 12 a.m. or 12 p.m.?"
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/general/misc.htm
Royal Observatory Greenwich
"Is noon 12 a.m. or 12 p.m.?"
http://www.rog.nmm.ac.uk/museum/faq.htm
Columbia Guide to Standard American English
A.M., P.M.
http://www.bartleby.com/68/20/320.html
Bells
http://www.bartleby.com/68/92/792.html
---
Bob Stahl
N.Mitchum
-----
> I see about an equal usage of the word noon alone vs 12 noon. Which
> form is proper and why?
Both are proper, and they mean almost the same thing.
"Noon" is somewhat vaguer. It can refer to 12 pm or to the noon
hour, about 12:00 to 1:00. "Twelve noon" refers to the precise
time of 12 pm. (I'm not one of those who holds that noon and
midnight cannot be designated a.m. or p.m.)
----NM
Don Aitken
wrote:
Thereby demonstrating that it is at least not generally agreed to be
correct, and can therefore only be ambiguous.
--
Don Aitken
Robert Bannister
A good jest: obviously non-digital clocks usually show only 12 hours, although
I have seen an unreadable 24 hr one. However, there is some lack of unanimity
in Europe: for some, midnight is 24 hours (eg 24 heures), for others it is 00
hours (eg Null Uhr).
--
Rob Bannister
N.Mitchum
-----
> >> 12 p.m. is correct for noon and 12 a.m. is correct for midnight.
> >
> >No, it isn't.
>
> Thereby demonstrating that it is at least not generally agreed to be
> correct, and can therefore only be ambiguous.
Oh, that's foolish. Of course it's correct, and there is no
ambiguity except among those bound and deteremined to be confused
by the obvious. Let's not restart this nerdish argument.
----NM
Robert Lieblich
When the Washington, D.C., police want to ban parking temporarily in
an area of the city through the conclusion of the 24-hour day, the
ending time they give on the signs they post is "12 p.m." I suspect
they do this on the premise that the evening (p.m.) concludes at
12:00, so midnight is 12 p.m.
Of course, it is the bound and determined duty of the D.C. police to
be confused by the obvious. Just ask them.
--
Bob Lieblich
To whom "12 p.m." is ambiguous, dammit
N.Mitchum
----
> > Oh, that's foolish. Of course it's correct, and there is no
> > ambiguity except among those bound and deteremined to be confused
> > by the obvious. Let's not restart this nerdish argument.
>
> When the Washington, D.C., police want to ban parking temporarily in
> an area of the city through the conclusion of the 24-hour day, the
> ending time they give on the signs they post is "12 p.m." I suspect
> they do this on the premise that the evening (p.m.) concludes at
> 12:00, so midnight is 12 p.m.
>
> Of course, it is the bound and determined duty of the D.C. police to
> be confused by the obvious. Just ask them.
You're restarting it! I told you not to do that!
12:01 in the afternoon is pip emma. Two minutes earlier is ack
emma. All the twelves in that bracket, including twelve straight
up, belong to the former. That's what is obvious. Now, just let
a D.C. cop try to ticket me and I'll have him looking cross-eyed
through his handcuffs and cattle prod. The very idea! Mmmph!
----NM
Mike Oliver
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
> > When the Washington, D.C., police want to ban parking temporarily in
> > an area of the city through the conclusion of the 24-hour day, the
> > ending time they give on the signs they post is "12 p.m." I suspect
> > they do this on the premise that the evening (p.m.) concludes at
> > 12:00, so midnight is 12 p.m.
> >
> > Of course, it is the bound and determined duty of the D.C. police to
> > be confused by the obvious. Just ask them.
> >.....
>
> You're restarting it! I told you not to do that!
If you want to tell people not to debate something, then you should
at least be on the right side, instead of the wrong side.
Robert Lieblich
There are three sides here. I'm on the third one -- 12 p.m. is
ambiguous and should be eschewed.
--
Bob Lieblich
Fourth side, anyone?
Richard Fontana
Another really bad thing is when people say things like "Sunday at
12 midnight" or "Sunday at 12 AM" or the like.
Mike Oliver
> Mike Oliver wrote:
>> at least be on the right side, instead of the wrong side.
>
> There are three sides here. I'm on the third one -- 12 p.m. is
> ambiguous and should be eschewed.
Why, that's the side I'm on too. I still say that N. should use
his powers for niceness, instead of evil.
Mark Barratt
<Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
>There are three sides here. I'm on the third one -- 12 p.m. is
>ambiguous and should be eschewed.
>
>--
>Bob Lieblich
>Fourth side, anyone?
OK. AM is ante, i.e before, and PM is post, i.e. after meridiem. But
12 o'clock *is* the meridiem, which is neither after nor before.
Therefore the correct designation should be 12 M. Midnight, of course,
is 12 NM.
Bob Stahl
>Robert Lieblich:
>>There are three sides here. I'm on the third one --
>>12 p.m. is ambiguous and should be eschewed.
>meridiem. But 12 o'clock *is* the meridiem, which is
>neither after nor before. Therefore the correct
>designation should be 12 M. Midnight, of course, is
>12 NM.
Shouldn't be difficult to reprogram digital time displays to reflect
this, but I see two problems: "nm" is already taken, and how long to
display it? A full minute, on hh:mm displays?
What about compasses?
---
Bob Stahl
Apurbva Chandra Senray
Yeah, I've used and heard "12 p.m." my whole life and I can't
recall a single instance in which someone expressed any degree of
doubt as to what it meant. Maybe, from a very literal point of view,
it is illogical, but not any more illogical than nearly everything
else about language. Language is largely arbitrary, anyway. We assign
meanings to sounds. We assign pronunciations to symbols. There is no
logical reason for cough not to rhyme with although, but we learn them
anyway. I have much difficulty believing that anyone with a basic
education has any doubt as to what "12 p.m." means.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 22:07:32 -0500, Robert Lieblich
> <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >There are three sides here. I'm on the third one -- 12 p.m. is
> >ambiguous and should be eschewed.
> >
> >Fourth side, anyone?
>
> OK. AM is ante, i.e before, and PM is post, i.e. after meridiem. But
> 12 o'clock *is* the meridiem, which is neither after nor before.
> Therefore the correct designation should be 12 M. Midnight, of course,
> is 12 NM.
12 noon plus epsilon is PM for any value of epsilon. By the time the
light has traveled from the clock to your eyes or the sound has
traveled from the bell to your ears or anything due to start at that
time has begun to begin, it's PM. The instant of noon is impossible
to pin down. Any time reporting with any tolerance should call it
PM.
On a similar topic, on January first, there were two babies born
"near" midnight in San Jose, but one got to be officially first
because her birth certificate said "12:00 AM" while the other said
"12:01 AM". (Or perhaps it was a second apart.) Although none of the
news stories mentioned it, I suspect that they both happened at
midnight, but one of the doctors was trained to never write "12:00 AM"
with a date because it could be read as being ambiguous between the
beginning and the end of the day.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Its like grasping the difference
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |between what one usually considers
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a 'difficult' problem, and what
|*is* a difficult problem. The day
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |one understands *why* counting all
(650)857-7572 |the molecules in the Universe isn't
|difficult...there's the leap.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Tina Marie Holmboe
Skitt
"Apurbva Chandra Senray" <acse...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Yeah, I've used and heard "12 p.m." my whole life and I can't
> recall a single instance in which someone expressed any degree of
> doubt as to what it meant. Maybe, from a very literal point of view,
> it is illogical, but not any more illogical than nearly everything
> else about language. Language is largely arbitrary, anyway. We assign
> meanings to sounds. We assign pronunciations to symbols. There is no
> logical reason for cough not to rhyme with although, but we learn them
> anyway. I have much difficulty believing that anyone with a basic
> education has any doubt as to what "12 p.m." means.
I arrived in the USA reasonably well educated in European, but other than
English-speaking, schools. The use of designations "AM" and "PM" were new
to me, but I knew what the abbreviations meant (I said I was reasonably
educated). Naturally, knowing the "meridiem" meaning, I assumed 12 PM to be
midnight -- what else could be 12 hours past noon? The thing that was
puzzling me was why 12 AM, another time that could only mean midnight, was
also used to refer to that time.
Since it was very seldom that the meanings of the abbreviations for those
exact times came into play, I was unsure of those meanings for many years.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> On a similar topic, on January first, there were two babies born
> "near" midnight in San Jose, but one got to be officially first
> because her birth certificate said "12:00 AM" while the other said
> "12:01 AM". (Or perhaps it was a second apart.) Although none of the
> news stories mentioned it, I suspect that they both happened at
> midnight, but one of the doctors was trained to never write "12:00 AM"
> with a date because it could be read as being ambiguous between the
> beginning and the end of the day.
Poor kids. Poor parents. Lost, by one minute or less in each case,
was the opportunity to claim a tax exemption for the kid for 2001.
If I were the parent with the 12:00 AM certificate, I'd argue it was
really midnight of December 31. The difference could be worth more
than $1,000 in income tax savings.
--
Bob Lieblich
No, I don't know why the exemption isn't prorated
Mark Barratt
Senray) wrote:
> Yeah, I've used and heard "12 p.m." my whole life and I can't
>recall a single instance in which someone expressed any degree of
>doubt as to what it meant.
Yes, but in speaking there is almost no chance of ambiguity between
noon and midnight. Even in writing, there is almost always going to be
sufficient context that you can see whether noon or midnight is
intended.
> Maybe, from a very literal point of view,
>it is illogical,
Well yes, as Skitt says, 12am and 12pm can both only logically mean
midnight[1].
> but not any more illogical than nearly everything
>else about language. Language is largely arbitrary, anyway. We assign
>meanings to sounds. We assign pronunciations to symbols. There is no
>logical reason for cough not to rhyme with although, but we learn them
>anyway. I have much difficulty believing that anyone with a basic
>education has any doubt as to what "12 p.m." means.
I would almost certainly understand what you mean by it. I wouldn't go
so far as to say that that's what it *means*, though.
1. obaue: It seems to me that the order of the three adverbs "both,
only, logically" in this sentence is optional. Do others agree?
-RZ
"Mark Barratt" <mark.b...@chello.be> wrote in message
news:ftqi5ug8haspqu8ep...@4ax.com...
Not entirely, in my opinion. I wouldn't expect to hear "only both
logically," for instance, though I don't know that it would change the
meaning much. But "only logically both" could be parsed differently. I
take the phrase as written to mean "logically speaking, both can only
mean," not "only in a logical sense can both mean."
Stephen Toogood
<gbl...@home.com> writes
the 24 hour clock is the dominant European written usage outside the UK,
and often within it, but not the spoken one.
All our transport timetables are in 24-hour clock (you must have noticed
that), but if you ask someone what time the bus to Cheltenham leaves
they look at their timetable, see '1827' and reply "six twenty seven",
or sometimes "just before half six", though let's not start that one
again.
--
Stephen Toogood
Mark Barratt
<mark.b...@chello.be> wrote:
>Well yes, as Skitt says, 12am and 12pm can both only logically mean
>midnight[1].
A little more thought on this brings me the blinding revelation that
12am does not mean 12 hours before noon, any more than 11am means 11
hours before noon.
It appears that a.m. should be read as 'hours into the forenoon',
which allows a logical claim for 12am on the noon spot.
--
Never argue with a fool. Some people won't
be able to tell the difference.
Skitt
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:26:51 +0100, Mark Barratt
> <mark.b...@chello.be> wrote:
>
> >Well yes, as Skitt says, 12am and 12pm can both only logically mean
> >midnight[1].
>
> A little more thought on this brings me the blinding revelation that
> 12am does not mean 12 hours before noon, any more than 11am means 11
> hours before noon.
>
> It appears that a.m. should be read as 'hours into the forenoon',
> which allows a logical claim for 12am on the noon spot.
You illegally imported the word "hours" into your translation from Latin.
Shame on you.
Lars Eighner
<c7482783.0201...@posting.google.com>,
the lovely and talented Apurbva Chandra Senray
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>> Neither A.M. nor P.M. is correct; it's 12 noon. One second earlier is
>> 11:59:59 A.M.; one second later is 12:00:01 P.M.
> 12 p.m. is correct for noon and 12 a.m. is correct for midnight.
Well, no. Noon is 12 m. Unfortunately, there are too many people
who would think the "m." stands for midnight. The only safe thing is
to make them "Noon" and "Midnight" and leave the numbers off
altogether.
>> The best way around this problem is to switch to 24-hour time,
>> as has largely already occurred in Europe.
> Problem? Uh ... what problem?
I'm sure there is a regulation for the military, but most
ordinary folks wouldn't be sure whether midnight is 24:00
or 00:00.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
The most difficult thing in the world is to know how to do a thing and
to watch someone else do it wrong without comment. --Theodore H. White
Mike Oliver
> I'm sure there is a regulation for the military, but most
> ordinary folks wouldn't be sure whether midnight is 24:00
> or 00:00.
Either, of course. 2400 Monday == 0000 Tuesday. Much
less ambiguous than "Monday at midnight", which could mean
either 2400 Monday or 0000 Monday.
Mike Oliver
Though this is only for formal usage, of course. Informally,
at least in my usage, "Monday night" lasts until at least six
o'clock Tuesday morning. I would be unembarassed to refer
to a point in time as "3 AM Monday night", and of course
I would mean what is formally considered Tuesday morning.
So "Monday at midnight" would almost always mean 2400 Monday,
not 0000 Monday.
Mark Barratt
wrote:
>
>"Mark Barratt" <mark.b...@chello.be> wrote in message
>news:0atl5u0fc97h9me1o...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:26:51 +0100, Mark Barratt
>> <mark.b...@chello.be> wrote:
>>
>> >Well yes, as Skitt says, 12am and 12pm can both only logically mean
>> >midnight[1].
>>
>> A little more thought on this brings me the blinding revelation that
>> 12am does not mean 12 hours before noon, any more than 11am means 11
>> hours before noon.
>>
>> It appears that a.m. should be read as 'hours into the forenoon',
>> which allows a logical claim for 12am on the noon spot.
>
>You illegally imported the word "hours" into your translation from Latin.
>Shame on you.
Maybe it's just late (05:30 here) but I don't follow. I don't know the
latin for 'hour' but I can't see what difference it makes - or more
likely, I can't see the joke that you're making. Give me 6 hours to
sleep on it.
--
A car is a car; a determiner is a determiner; an inaccurate and
confusing definition is an inaccurate and confusing definition.
- Mark Wallace defines "determiner"
Skitt
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:28:22 -0800, "Skitt" <sk...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mark Barratt" <mark.b...@chello.be> wrote in message
> >news:0atl5u0fc97h9me1o...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:26:51 +0100, Mark Barratt
> >> <mark.b...@chello.be> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Well yes, as Skitt says, 12am and 12pm can both only logically mean
> >> >midnight[1].
> >>
> >> A little more thought on this brings me the blinding revelation that
> >> 12am does not mean 12 hours before noon, any more than 11am means 11
> >> hours before noon.
> >>
> >> It appears that a.m. should be read as 'hours into the forenoon',
> >> which allows a logical claim for 12am on the noon spot.
> >
> >You illegally imported the word "hours" into your translation from Latin.
> >Shame on you.
>
> Maybe it's just late (05:30 here) but I don't follow. I don't know the
> latin for 'hour' but I can't see what difference it makes - or more
> likely, I can't see the joke that you're making. Give me 6 hours to
> sleep on it.
No joke. When you see 11 AM, it does not translate to 11 _hours_ before
noon. It is 11, before noon.
Skitt
So one would think, but insurance companies are leery of misunderstandings
that could cost them money, so they purposely start and end their coverages
at 12:01 a.m.
Geoff Butler
>Mike Oliver wrote:
>> Lars Eighner wrote:
>>> I'm sure there is a regulation for the military, but most
>>> ordinary folks wouldn't be sure whether midnight is 24:00
>>> or 00:00.
>>
>> Either, of course. 2400 Monday == 0000 Tuesday. Much
>> less ambiguous than "Monday at midnight", which could mean
>> either 2400 Monday or 0000 Monday.
>
>Though this is only for formal usage, of course. Informally,
>at least in my usage, "Monday night" lasts until at least six
>o'clock Tuesday morning. I would be unembarassed to refer
>to a point in time as "3 AM Monday night", and of course
>I would mean what is formally considered Tuesday morning.
I'm sure there are people who go to sleep in the early evening and get
up a 2am, for whom 3am is Tuesday morning. As far as I'm concerned,
however, anything before the first cup of coffee is the night before, so
"8am Monday night" isn't unreasonable, depending who I'm talking to.
-ler
Padraig Breathnach
>...Informally,
>at least in my usage, "Monday night" lasts until at least six
>o'clock Tuesday morning. I would be unembarassed to refer
>to a point in time as "3 AM Monday night", and of course
>I would mean what is formally considered Tuesday morning.
>
An apposite observation. I met a friend yesterday, and we were both in
a tired state. He told me that he had been up at 4.00 a.m. I told him
that I had too. It transpired that he had got up early on Wednesday,
while I had gone to bed late on Tuesday.
PB
Gary Williams
> Mark Barratt <mark.b...@chello.be> writes:
> > OK. AM is ante, i.e before, and PM is post, i.e. after meridiem. But
> > 12 o'clock *is* the meridiem, which is neither after nor before.
> > Therefore the correct designation should be 12 M. Midnight, of course,
> > is 12 NM.
> ... The instant of noon is impossible
> to pin down. Any time reporting with any tolerance should call it PM.
That works for a digital clock display. (For an analog display
there's no problem.) But the programmers need write the program only
to display 12:00 N for an instant. If they are cynical or from
marketing they may reason that since the duration of the display will
be too instantaneous to be perceptible, they may omit it altogether.
But why do you assume that the convention is that time expressions do
not incorporate rounding? A display of 12:00 should mean that it is
between 11:59.5 and 12:00.5, and the 12:00 N should be displayed for a
full minute. This is consistent, I think, with pre-digital practice.
If you look at an analog clock and the minute and second hands are 2
degrees anti-clockwise of the XII, do you report that the time is
11:59? Why should the time taken from one clock be reported as 11:59
while for a full thirty seconds the time taken from a perfectly
calibrated other clock is reported as 12:00? For fully half the day,
the times reported by an analog clock and a digital clock perfectly
calibrated with it will differ. This is hardly designed to lend
credibility to our system of time, a system which some maintain is
crucial to the functioning of an industrial society and thus to
civilization as we know it.
Here is my fourth position: time near midday should be reported, in
addition to a.m., p.m., and noon as analog or digital: At 11:59:31
it's 12:00 noon analog; 11:59 a.m. digital.
I don't think we should adjust conventions--in timetelling or in
alphabetization--just to make life easier for the programmers.
Gary Williams
Gary Williams
> Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote
> ... As far as I'm concerned,
> however, anything before the first cup of coffee is the night before, so
> "8am Monday night" isn't unreasonable, depending who I'm talking to.
I think you've hit upon a solution: the insurance companies to which
Skitt referred should date their policies to expire "On January 1,
simultaneous with the first cup of coffee".
Gary Williams
trke...@gmail.com
> I see about an equal usage of the word noon alone vs 12 noon. Which
> form is proper and why?
> Thanks
> Magdalena Bassett
Allow me to complicate things more - in an older (late 40s) dictionary I grew up with, Noon was abbreviated as "M" (meridies). In the early part of the movie On the Town", a NYC digital street clock shows, at Noon, 12:00M.
Mark Brader
--
Mark Brader "I wonder why. I wonder why.
Toronto I wonder why I wonder.
m...@vex.net I wonder *why* I wonder why
I wonder why I wonder!" -- Richard Feynman
djam...@gmail.com
Athel Cornish-Bowden
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
response.
The list of respondents is a Who's Who of sainted RRs.
Ken Blake
--
Ken
bebe...@aol.com
(hora)", i.e. "ninth (hour)".
>
>
> --
> Ken
Ant
> On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 8:52:58 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2020-06-15 12:06:33 +0000, djam...@gmail.com said:
> > > On Monday, January 28, 2002 at 9:11:10 PM UTC-5, Magdalena Bassett wrote:
> > >> I see about an equal usage of the word noon alone vs 12 noon. Which
> > >> form is proper and why?
> > >> Thanks
> > >> Magdalena Bassett
> >
> > Both are OK.
> I'm sure Ms. Bassett has been waiting batedly for 12 1/2 years for your
> response.
--
Life is so crazy! ..!.. *isms, sins, (d)evil, illness (e.g., COVID-19/2019-nCoV/SARS-CoV-2), deaths, heat waves, arsonists, out(r)ages, unlucky #4, 2020, etc. :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org /
/ /\ /\ \ http://antfarm.ma.cx. Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )
Athel Cornish-Bowden
post of 15th June 2020, not to Maalena Bassett's.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
that: he'll just think you're responding to a question of 28th January
2002.
--
athel
charles
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Paul carmichael
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> On 2020-06-15 12:06:33 +0000, djam...@gmail.com said:
>>
>>> On Monday, January 28, 2002 at 9:11:10 PM UTC-5, Magdalena Bassett wrote:
>>>> I see about an equal usage of the word noon alone vs 12 noon. Which
>>>> form is proper and why?
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Magdalena Bassett
>>
>> Both are OK.
>>
>>
>
> But written, 24 hour clock is best.
everyday use.
With a name like Magdalena maybe she does too.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
Bassett's question, not djamino's completely empty message -- s/he
added nothing at all to what s/he quoted.
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
wrote:
time has been stated as "twelve" to clarify whether it is twelve noon or
twelve midnight.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Mark Brader
>> ...I would just say "noon." "Twelve noon" is redundant.
Peter Duncanson:
> Not totally redundant.
Yes it is.
> "Twelve noon" can be used, for instance, when a time has been stated
> as "twelve" to clarify whether it is twelve noon or twelve midnight.
redundant, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. In particular, plain
"noon" can sound weird in a context where "11 am" or "1 pm" might have
been equally expected.
--
Mark Brader | I fear what might happen if, like Skynet, the
Toronto | Republican Party ever became self-aware.
m...@vex.net | --D.F. Manno
Peter Moylan
> Ken Blake:
>>> ...I would just say "noon." "Twelve noon" is redundant.
>
> Peter Duncanson:
>> Not totally redundant.
>
> Yes it is.
>
>> "Twelve noon" can be used, for instance, when a time has been
>> stated as "twelve" to clarify whether it is twelve noon or twelve
>> midnight.
>
> Of course, but that doesn't make it not redundant. But just because
> it's redundant, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. In
> particular, plain "noon" can sound weird in a context where "11 am"
> or "1 pm" might have been equally expected.
because people find it hard to remember which is which.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Mark Brader
> > ...just because it's redundant, that doesn't mean it shouldn't
> > where "11 am" or "1 pm" might have been equally expected.
which one "12 m" means, because it depends on whether the M is English
or Latin.
> because people find it hard to remember which is which.
(Unless of course you're following the conventions of digital clocks,
VCRs, and such, in which case which is which is obvious.)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Don't let it drive you crazy...
m...@vex.net | Leave the driving to us!" --Wayne & Shuster
Peter Moylan
> Mark Brader:
>>> ...just because it's redundant, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be
>>> used. In particular, plain "noon" can sound weird in a context
>>> where "11 am" or "1 pm" might have been equally expected.
>
> Peter Moylan:
>> Yes, but "12 am" and "12 pm" are in my opinion greatly to be
>> deprecated,
>
> Well, of course. It's "12 noon" and "12 midnight". The only problem
> is which one "12 m" means, because it depends on whether the M is
> English or Latin.
also be Latin. But I say "noon" anyway.
Meanwhile, midnight is both 12 hours after noon and 12 hours before
noon, so logically it is both 12 pm and 12 am. Not that that matters to
me. For those of us whose intellectual peak comes in the evening - and
who are therefore often still found active in the wee-wee hours -
24-hour time is more convenient. The 12-hour system is designed for
those who rise at 6 am and go to bed at 6 pm, so who don't need to know
about the other half of the clock.
>> because people find it hard to remember which is which.
>
> One is wrong and the other is wrong, so that's not so hard to
> remember. (Unless of course you're following the conventions of
> digital clocks, VCRs, and such, in which case which is which is
> obvious.)
other electronic device in the house, or at least those which include a
clock, uses a 24-hour clock. I would hate to have a video recorder that
used a 12-hour clock, because of the risk of mistakes in the scheduled
recording times.
Ken Blake
--
Ken
Ken Blake
because neither one makes any sense. 12am is not before meridiem, and 12
pm is not after meridiem.
--
Ken
Ken Blake
clock would be much better, but it would take me a while to get used to it.
Even better than a 24-hour clock would be a digital one, one that
divides a day into 10 hours, an hour into 100 minutes, and a minute into
100 seconds. But it will never happen.
--
Ken
J. J. Lodder
> > other electronic device in the house, or at least those which include a
> > clock, uses a 24-hour clock. I would hate to have a video recorder that
> > used a 12-hour clock, because of the risk of mistakes in the scheduled
> > recording times.
>
>
>
> Here in the USA, all (almost all?) clocks are 12-hour. I think a 24-hour
> clock would be much better, but it would take me a while to get used to it.
>
> Even better than a 24-hour clock would be a digital one, one that
> divides a day into 10 hours, an hour into 100 minutes, and a minute into
> 100 seconds. But it will never happen.
Jan
Mark Brader
> divides a day into 10 hours, an hour into 100 minutes, and a minute into
> 100 seconds. But it will never happen.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "The singular of 'data' is not 'anecdote.'"
m...@vex.net | -- Jeff Goldberg
CDB
>> Mark Brader wrote:
Ken Blake:
>>>>> ...I would just say "noon." "Twelve noon" is redundant
>>>> Not totally redundant.
>>> Yes it is.
>>>> "Twelve noon" can be used, for instance, when a time has been
>>>> stated as "twelve" to clarify whether it is twelve noon or twelve
>>>> midnight.
>>> Of course, but that doesn't make it not redundant. But just because
>>> it's redundant, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. In
>>> particular, plain "noon" can sound weird in a context where "11 am"
>>> or "1 pm" might have been equally expected.
>> Yes, but "12 am" and "12 pm" are in my opinion greatly to be deprecated,
>> because people find it hard to remember which is which.
> Yes, I agree. I'm one of those who find it hard to remember. That's
> because neither one makes any sense. 12am is not before meridiem, and 12
> pm is not after meridiem.
noon that precedes it, and the first nanosecond (or less) is close to
equidistant from the two noons.
Fifty-nine seconds (plus) of 12:00 pm are after noon.
Mark Brader
> noon that precedes it, and the first nanosecond (or less) is close to
> equidistant from the two noons.
which is an instant.
> Fifty-nine seconds (plus) of 12:00 pm are after noon.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "We are full of digital chain letters and
m...@vex.net | warnings about marmalade." --Matt Ridley
Mark Brader
--
Mark Brader | Obviously an off by 1 error somewhere. You know
Toronto | the kind, where you intend to put something simple
m...@vex.net | like "while (1=0) {" and type "while (1=1) {" instead.
--Stephen Perry
Peter T. Daniels
> C.D. Bellemare:
> > Most of 12:00 am is closer to the noon that follows it than it is to the
> > noon that precedes it, and the first nanosecond (or less) is close to
> > equidistant from the two noons.
>
> Nonsense. You are attempting to talk about 12:00-12:01, not 12:00,
> which is an instant.
>
> > Fifty-nine seconds (plus) of 12:00 pm are after noon.
>
> Between the two sentences, you have also confused which one you link is noon.
RH Draney
>
> Here in the USA, all (almost all?) clocks are 12-hour. I think a 24-hour
> clock would be much better, but it would take me a while to get used to it.
Sam Plusnet
"Noon" is such a short word that the listener might fail to hear it
correctly.
--
Sam Plusnet
Ken Blake
> Ken Blake:
>> Even better than a 24-hour clock would be a digital one, one that
>> divides a day into 10 hours, an hour into 100 minutes, and a minute into
>> 100 seconds. But it will never happen.
>
> It already happened, and nobody went along.
--
Ken
Ken Blake
--
Ken
Ken Blake
--
Ken
Tony Cooper
wrote:
night.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
J. J. Lodder
> Ken Blake:
> > Even better than a 24-hour clock would be a digital one, one that
> > divides a day into 10 hours, an hour into 100 minutes, and a minute into
> > 100 seconds. But it will never happen.
>
> It already happened, and nobody went along.
The whole metric system was a highly charged politicised subject.
Royalists and other conservatives were very much opposed to it,
Revolutionaries and generally progressive people were in favour.
So the fate of it depended on the politics of the day.
In the end Napoleon abolished it, to gain support
for his coronation as emperor. [1]
This is just the opposite of an Anglo-Saxon myth
that holds that the metric system is dictatorial units,
because it took a dictator to impose them.
In the end France was a late adopter,
only after their revolution of 1830,
Jan
[1] In reality Napoleon was even more clever:
he decreed that the metric system would be abolished for general use,
but that the schools must continue to teach it.
So when France was finally ripe for it
the introduction went relatively smoothly.
J. J. Lodder
Jan
J. J. Lodder
that is basically a sundial with an interpolation mechanism.
It chimes, but you do have to wind the chimes for yourself,
and you have to bring your own light,
Jan
Kerr-Mudd,John
#4 am in the morn-ning.
(c. Mike Oldfield)
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Kerr-Mudd,John
> C.D. Bellemare:
>> Most of 12:00 am is closer to the noon that follows it than it is to
>> the noon that precedes it, and the first nanosecond (or less) is
>> close to equidistant from the two noons.
>
> Nonsense. You are attempting to talk about 12:00-12:01, not 12:00,
> which is an instant.
>
>> Fifty-nine seconds (plus) of 12:00 pm are after noon.
>
> Between the two sentences, you have also confused which one you link
> is noon.
this notion more clearsomely.
Kerr-Mudd,John
checks internets:
Ah there's a restaurant in Atlanta of that ilk.
But not a "real" one.
J. J. Lodder
> Ken Blake:
> > Even better than a 24-hour clock would be a digital one, one that
> > divides a day into 10 hours, an hour into 100 minutes, and a minute into
> > 100 seconds. But it will never happen.
>
> It already happened, and nobody went along.
Jan
<https://i.pinimg.com/236x/8c/4a/49/8c4a498a809150b0e2725e6e52836836--de
cimal-time-time-clock.jpg>
J. J. Lodder
Jan
CDB
> C.D. Bellemare:
>> Most of 12:00 am is closer to the noon that follows it than it is
>> to the noon that precedes it, and the first nanosecond (or less) is
>> close to equidistant from the two noons.
> Nonsense. You are attempting to talk about 12:00-12:01, not 12:00,
> which is an instant.
usage. In the kind of hyper-technical use you are imagining, "am" would
very probably not be used.
I said "nanosecond or less", but if you prefer "instant", that's OK too.
>> Fifty-nine seconds (plus) of 12:00 pm are after noon.
> Between the two sentences, you have also confused which one you link
> is noon.
the earlier noon is out of the reckoning, only mentioned because it is
about 12 hours farther away from the 12:00 am under consideration than
the later noon, the one that that 12:00 am is said to be before.
In the second sentence there is only one noon, the one that 12:00 pm
follows. Precisely 12:00:00 pm is the noon hour and the rest of the
minute designated as "12:00 pm" comes after that point.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulam_Noon,_Baron_Noon
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
alongside a standing stone that at noon casts no shadow. Does that mean
that their land is all the way down in the Tropics, such that the sun
can be directly overhead? How, then, can the sinister forest be populated
by a variety of species familiar in England?
Jerry Friedman
[sundial]
> When Frodo & Co. are trying to traverse the Downs, they find themselves
> alongside a standing stone that at noon casts no shadow. Does that mean
> that their land is all the way down in the Tropics, such that the sun
> can be directly overhead?
No, I'd say it's either magic, or an exaggeration giving an uncanny
feeling, supplementing the strange coolness of the stone's east side.
The exaggeration is somewhat less if the base of the stone is wider
than its top. Anyway, it might not have been Tolkien's best idea.
--
Jerry Friedman
charles
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter T. Daniels
> On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 8:10:18 AM UTC-6, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> [sundial]
> > When Frodo & Co. are trying to traverse the Downs, they find themselves
> > alongside a standing stone that at noon casts no shadow. Does that mean
> > that their land is all the way down in the Tropics, such that the sun
> > can be directly overhead?
>
> feeling, supplementing the strange coolness of the stone's east side.
> The exaggeration is somewhat less if the base of the stone is wider
> than its top. Anyway, it might not have been Tolkien's best idea.
understands nothing, nothing at all, about that world.
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <b4f9345b-ce6b-4b46...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 5:23:42 PM UTC-4, RH Draney wrote:
> > > On 6/17/2020 8:27 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> > > > Here in the USA, all (almost all?) clocks are 12-hour. I think a 24-hour
> > > > clock would be much better, but it would take me a while to get used to it.
> > > How long would it take to get used to a 24-hour sundial?...r
> > When Frodo & Co. are trying to traverse the Downs, they find themselves
> > alongside a standing stone that at noon casts no shadow. Does that mean
> > that their land is all the way down in the Tropics, such that the sun
> > can be directly overhead? How, then, can the sinister forest be populated
> > by a variety of species familiar in England?
>
> they are not in our world
Sam Plusnet
--
Sam Plusnet
Sam Plusnet
finger trouble?
--
Sam Plusnet
Sam Plusnet
> On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 8:10:18 AM UTC-6, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> [sundial]
>
>> When Frodo & Co. are trying to traverse the Downs, they find themselves
>> alongside a standing stone that at noon casts no shadow. Does that mean
>> that their land is all the way down in the Tropics, such that the sun
>> can be directly overhead?
> No, I'd say it's either magic, or an exaggeration giving an uncanny
> feeling, supplementing the strange coolness of the stone's east side.
> The exaggeration is somewhat less if the base of the stone is wider
> than its top. Anyway, it might not have been Tolkien's best idea.
>
noonday sun.
--
Sam Plusnet
Sam Plusnet
>
> Let's rename them to High Noon an Low Noon,
>
--
Sam Plusnet