Metric ton or tonne

[Richard Thieme]

A question from someone who feels that they are losing familiarity with
American English as it changes.

Is "tonne" now recognizable and does it feel comfortable to an American
reader when referring to a metric ton?

Or should "metric ton" be used?

I assume that a "ton" to an American still means 2,000 pounds, or would we
be comfortable with it referring to a metric ton as well?

Regards,

Richard Thiem

[Anthony Bryant]

If you're writing for an American audience, regardless of whether it's
metric or "conventional," a ton is "ton". If you're writing for a Brit-
English using audience, *then* I'd suggest "tonne".

Tony

[Richard Thieme]

Hmmm. That doesn''t seem very precise to me, though. There is a sizable
difference between the Metric ton and the English ton. And the difference
needs to come through. When I grew up, the default in America when you said
ton the default was 2,000 pounds, and if you meant metric, you needed to
specify.

I assume that is still the case, or am I wrong?

Regards,

Richard Thieme

[Mark Spahn]

>>> I assume that a "ton" to an American still means 2,000 pounds, or
>>> would we
>>> be comfortable with it referring to a metric ton as well?
>

> Hmmm. That doesn''t seem very precise to me, though. There is a sizable
> difference between the Metric ton and the English ton. And the difference
> needs to come through. When I grew up, the default in America when you
> said
> ton the default was 2,000 pounds, and if you meant metric, you needed to
> specify.
>
> I assume that is still the case, or am I wrong?
>
> Regards,
> Richard Thieme

The British spelling "tonne" has exactly the same meaning as the American
spelling "ton", but this meaning itself is ambiguous. A ton could be a
short ton (2,000 pounds avoirdupois, = 907 kg), a long ton (2,240 pounds
avoirdupois, = 1,016 kg), or a metric ton (1,000 kg, = 2,205 pounds). I'd
suggest that upon the first use of "ton" without a preceding
"long/short/metric", you give its meaning in parentheses, such as
"<blah-blah-blah> 618 tons (ton = 2,000 pounds) <blah-blah-blah>". The
meaning of the two-word phrase "metric ton" -- like the meaning of "short
ton" or "long ton" -- is unambiguous, and the difference need not be
explained any more than you would need to stop to explain the difference
between a baker's dozen and a dozen.
-- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

[Richard Thieme]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Spahn" <mark...@verizon.net>
To: <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Metric ton or tonne

>
>

>>>> I assume that a "ton" to an American still means 2,000 pounds, or
>>>> would we
>>>> be comfortable with it referring to a metric ton as well?
>>
>> Hmmm. That doesn''t seem very precise to me, though. There is a sizable
>> difference between the Metric ton and the English ton. And the
>> difference
>> needs to come through. When I grew up, the default in America when you
>> said
>> ton the default was 2,000 pounds, and if you meant metric, you needed to
>> specify.
>>
>> I assume that is still the case, or am I wrong?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Richard Thieme
>
> The British spelling "tonne" has exactly the same meaning as the American
> spelling "ton", but this meaning itself is ambiguous.

Interesting. Wikipedia says that tonne now means a metric ton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne

Are you saying that is incorrect?

Regards,

Richard Thieme

[JimBreen]

On Oct 17, 4:09 pm, "Mark Spahn" <marksp...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The British spelling "tonne" has exactly the same meaning as the American
> spelling "ton", but this meaning itself is ambiguous.

Not really. See below.

> ....A ton could be a

> short ton (2,000 pounds avoirdupois, = 907 kg), a long ton (2,240 pounds
> avoirdupois, = 1,016 kg), or a metric ton (1,000 kg, = 2,205 pounds). I'd
> suggest that upon the first use of "ton" without a preceding
> "long/short/metric", you give its meaning in parentheses, such as
> "<blah-blah-blah> 618 tons (ton = 2,000 pounds) <blah-blah-blah>". The
> meaning of the two-word phrase "metric ton" -- like the meaning of "short
> ton" or "long ton" -- is unambiguous, and the difference need not be
> explained any more than you would need to stop to explain the difference
> between a baker's dozen and a dozen.

My understanding of British usage of these words (just confirmed in
the
Shorter Oxford) is that "ton" is 2,240 lb, and "tonne" is the metric
measure of 1,000 kg (approx 2,205 lb). If you want 2,000 lb you have
to
say "short ton".

It's the same in Australia.

Jim

[Alan Siegrist]

Richard Thieme writes:

> Interesting. Wikipedia says that tonne now means a metric ton
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne
>
> Are you saying that is incorrect?

The Wikipedia article says two different things. One portion which was
probably written by a writer of British English says:

| The spelling tonne pre-dates the introduction of the SI system in 1960 (it
| has been used with this meaning in France since 1842[3]), and is now used
| as the standard spelling for the metric mass measurement in most English-
| speaking countries"

You will note that this statement is marked "Citation Needed" and appears to
belie the biases of the writer. I can't help but assume that this phrase
"most English-speaking countries" is intended to mean "countries that use
British rather than American English."

However, later on in the Explanation section, we find:

| For the United States, metric ton is the name for this unit used and
| recommended by NIST.[5] In the U.S. an unqualified mention of a "ton"
| almost invariably refers to a short ton of 2,000 pounds (907.1847 kg)."

I believe this portion is consistent with standard American usage.

Thus, for an American audience, I would recommend that you follow NIST
guidelines and use "metric ton" rather than tonne.

Regards,

Alan Siegrist
Carmel, CA, USA

[Richard Thieme]

Actually the following gives good information on this at the bottom of p.
40338

http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/upload/SIFedReg.pdf

Which states "With regard to the
metric ton, this is the name to be used
in the United States for the unit with
symbol t and defined according to 1 t =
103 kg. (The name ‘‘metric ton’’ is also
used in some other English speaking
countries, but the name ‘‘tonne’’ is used
in many countries.)"

So barring further clarification I thnik that is what I will continue to
use.

Regards,

Richard Thieme

[Mark Spahn]

>> Interesting. Wikipedia says that tonne now means a metric ton
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne
>> Are you saying that is incorrect?

I stand corrected.
According to a recent U.S. dictionary, a "ton" means
either a short ton (2,000 lb), a long ton (2,240 lb), or
a metric ton (1,000 kg).
But under the entry for "ton", the spelling "tonne"
is not listed as a variant, British spelling (as I had
assumed it would be). Instead, there is a separate
entry for "tonne", which is defined solely as
"a metric ton; 1,000 kg".
The pronunciation /tun/ is ambiguous;
the spelling "tonne" is not.

[Brian Chandler]

Mark Spahn wrote:
> >> Interesting. Wikipedia says that tonne now means a metric ton
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne
> >> Are you saying that is incorrect?
>
> I stand corrected.
> According to a recent U.S. dictionary, a "ton" means
> either a short ton (2,000 lb), a long ton (2,240 lb), or
> a metric ton (1,000 kg).
> But under the entry for "ton", the spelling "tonne"
> is not listed as a variant, British spelling (as I had
> assumed it would be).

I don't believe "tonne" is a "British spelling" at all. The ton that
is 2240 lb (as it has to be, since it's 20 cwt, and a cwt is 4
quarters, and a quarter is 2 stones, and a stone is 14 lb) has always
been spelled "ton". If anything "tonne" is a "French spelling" -- but
as various sources seem to have confirmed it's often used for the
metric ton(ne) which is 1000kg (as it has to be, since that's much
more sensible).

(You are probably misled by "gramme", which _is_ a "British
spelling".)

Are there no traditional American units between lb and ton?
Why doesn't a fluid ounce of American water weigh an ounce?
Why do these questions always come in threes?

Brian Chandler

[Alan Siegrist]

Brian Chandler writes:

> Are there no traditional American units between lb and ton?

Yes, we use the hundredweight (cwt) which is 100 lb, so 20 cwt is a ton.
I don't think the hundredweight is very common in popular speech, but it
does have its purposes such as in freight shipping. See:
http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/shipping/time/service/hundredweight.html

We do not use the stone, as far as I know.

> Why doesn't a fluid ounce of American water weigh an ounce?

Good question. Why is a British hundredweight not a hundred pounds?

> Why do these questions always come in threes?

Why indeed? Why, why, why?

Regards,

Alan Siegrist,
Carmel, CA, USA

[TimL...@aol.com]

In a message dated 17/10/2009 16:19:51 GMT Daylight Time, AlanFS...@Comcast.net writes:

Why is a British hundredweight not a hundred pounds?

It used to be 108 pounds until the 15th century, if Wikipedia is to be believed.  For a much larger crop of whys, see

 

http://www.sizes.com/library/British_law/ponderibus.htm

 

Tim

[Alan Siegrist]

Tim Leeney writes:

 

Why is a British hundredweight not a hundred pounds?

It used to be 108 pounds until the 15th century, if Wikipedia is to be believed.  For a much larger crop of whys, see

 

http://www.sizes.com/library/British_law/ponderibus.htm

 

Fascinating bit of history. Thanks for that.

 

On the same site, I happened to notice the following page, which interestingly notes that the ancient “hundred” was not always 100 but could also have been 120 or even something else, depending on what is being counted.

http://www.sizes.com/units/hundred.htm

 

(As a bit of an excursion, I wonder if the modern German Hundert is always 100. Can it also mean another number?)

 

Thank heavens the metric system has saved us from this chaos. ;-)

[TimL...@aol.com]

In a message dated 17/10/2009 18:10:22 GMT Daylight Time, AlanFS...@Comcast.net writes:

(As a bit of an excursion, I wonder if the modern German Hundert is always 100. Can it also mean another number?)

 

Thank heavens the metric system has saved us from this chaos. ;-)

Except in Austria and Switzerland it would seem (Zentner 100 kg), compared to Germany (Zentner  50 kg)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zentner

 

Regards

Tim @ way off topic

[Mark Spahn]

Brian Chandler writes:

> I don't believe "tonne" is a "British spelling" at all. ...

> (You are probably misled by "gramme", which _is_ a "British spelling".)

Yes, indeed I was.

> Are there no traditional American units between lb and ton?

Apparently, no.
The word "hundredweight" is rare, except in specialized contexts.
In the metric system of prefixes (kilo-, mega-, giga-, tera-, peta-,
exa-, zetta-, yotta-), the ratio between successive units is 1000;
with lb and ton, the ratio is 2000.

> Why doesn't a fluid ounce of American water weigh an ounce?

Good point. The word "ounce" can refer to either weight or volume.
And so can "ton": Earlier, I didn't want to needlessly complicate the
discussion by pointing out that "ton" could also mean a "register ton"
(= 100 cubic feet) or a "displacement ton" (= 35 cubic feet).

> Why do these questions always come in threes?

Rhetorical esthetics. Coincidentally, within the past 24 hours
a comedian said, "I know comedy typically comes in threes.
We threw that fourth one in there because we like to f**k with
the structure." See the following video clip at 2:36:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/fri-october-16-2009/recap---week-of-10-12-09

[Alan Siegrist]

Mark Spahn writes:

> The word "hundredweight" is rare, except in specialized contexts.

This is true. But may I ask our esteemed British contingent how common or
rare "hundredweight" is there now? I think the "stone" is common for body
weights, but what would your typical British person measure by the
hundredweight?

[JimBreen]

On Oct 18, 6:25 am, "Alan Siegrist" <AlanFSiegr...@Comcast.net> wrote:
> ...... But may I ask our esteemed British contingent how common or

> rare "hundredweight" is there now? I think the "stone" is common for body
> weights, but what would your typical British person measure by the
> hundredweight?

Being neither British nor typical I shouldn't respond, but since I was
brought up in that system (before we metrified 35 years ago), I will
have
my ha'p'orth.

The 112 lb "hundredweight" was used for all sort of materials, e.g.
grain.
It was the common weight measure for things somewhere in between pound
and ton.
The 14 lb "stone" was almost entirely restricted to body weight, and
indeed
is still widely used here for that. You still hear of people being "18
stone";
not 116 kg.

Jim

[Tom Donahue]

Mark Spahn writes:

>> I don't believe "tonne" is a "British spelling" at all. ...
>> (You are probably misled by "gramme", which _is_ a "British spelling".)
> Yes, indeed I was.

Which answers the original question, as to whether American
readers can be trusted to think "metric ton" when they see "tonne".
No, they can't.
Whatever Wikipedia or standards bodies may say, the average reader
is likely to think it's just ye olde British spelling.

--
Tom Donahue

[Wolfgang Bechstein]

Alan Siegrist wrote:

> (As a bit of an excursion, I wonder if the modern German Hundert is always
> 100. Can it also mean another number?)

Not to my knowledge. Unless of course it is used figuratively, similar
to English: I told you a hundred times...

Wolfgang Bechstein

[Alan Siegrist]

Jim Breen writes:

> > ...... But may I ask our esteemed British contingent how common or
> > rare "hundredweight" is there now? I think the "stone" is common for
> > body weights, but what would your typical British person measure by the
> > hundredweight?
>
> Being neither British nor typical I shouldn't respond, but since I was
> brought up in that system (before we metrified 35 years ago), I will
> have my ha'p'orth.
>
> The 112 lb "hundredweight" was used for all sort of materials, e.g.
> grain. It was the common weight measure for things somewhere in between
> pound and ton.

Thanks for the reply. May I assume that, now Australia has metrified, the
"hundredweight" is no longer used?

I am also curious, though, was the weight measure of the hundredweight used
for grain rather than the volume measure of the bushel?

[JimBreen]

On Oct 18, 10:22 am, "Alan Siegrist" <AlanFSiegr...@Comcast.net>
wrote:

> Jim Breen writes:
> > The 112 lb "hundredweight" was used for all sort of materials, e.g.
> > grain. It was the common weight measure for things somewhere in between
> > pound and ton.
>
> Thanks for the reply. May I assume that, now Australia has metrified, the
> "hundredweight" is no longer used?

Correct. I haven't heard it in years, apart from in historical
contexts
or in references to American measurements.

> I am also curious, though, was the weight measure of the hundredweight used
> for grain rather than the volume measure of the bushel?

I think both were used in different contexts.

Jim

[Richard Thieme]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Chandler" <imagin...@despammed.com>
To: "Honyaku E<>J translation list" <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: Metric ton or tonne

>

> Mark Spahn wrote:
>> >> Interesting. Wikipedia says that tonne now means a metric ton
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne
>> >> Are you saying that is incorrect?
>>
>> I stand corrected.
>> According to a recent U.S. dictionary, a "ton" means
>> either a short ton (2,000 lb), a long ton (2,240 lb), or
>> a metric ton (1,000 kg).
>> But under the entry for "ton", the spelling "tonne"
>> is not listed as a variant, British spelling (as I had
>> assumed it would be).
>
> I don't believe "tonne" is a "British spelling" at all. The ton that
> is 2240 lb (as it has to be, since it's 20 cwt, and a cwt is 4
> quarters, and a quarter is 2 stones, and a stone is 14 lb) has always
> been spelled "ton". If anything "tonne" is a "French spelling" -- but
> as various sources seem to have confirmed it's often used for the
> metric ton(ne) which is 1000kg (as it has to be, since that's much
> more sensible).

I think in a roundabout way you are answering another question that I had,
although given your long residence in Japan, I would like to hear from
others in our British contingent who might be more up to date on this (not
to say you are not, I really don't know).

Has the connotative meaning of "ton" in common British English morphed with
the metric system? That is would your average British person think metric
ton when he sees the word "ton," or would he draw a distinction and think
2240 pounds, or even possibly the short ton, for ton, and when he or she
sees tonne, think metric?

Regards,

Richard Thieme

[Richard Thieme]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Donahue" <arri...@gmail.com>
To: <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2009 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: Metric ton or tonne

>

> Mark Spahn writes:
>
>>> I don't believe "tonne" is a "British spelling" at all. ...
>>> (You are probably misled by "gramme", which _is_ a "British spelling".)
>> Yes, indeed I was.
>
> Which answers the original question, as to whether American
> readers can be trusted to think "metric ton" when they see "tonne".
> No, they can't.

Indeed and thanks for all of the input. This brings up a more basic issue
for Americans, which is something that a proofreader caught me on, and which
touched off this question. "トン" in Japanese usually does not mean "ton" in
American English, since Japan is on the metric system and the US is not.

Regards,

Richard Thieme

[Fred Uleman]

On a related measure, a decades-old reference book on weights and measures distinguishes between U.S. gallons and imperial gallons. Is that distinction still made?

--
Fred Uleman

[JimBreen]

Indeed it is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallon

In Australia the gallon (and it was always ~4.5 litre "imperial";
never the smaller US one) has officially gone, but I refuel my
lawn mower and chainsaw from a can which for some reason holds
4.5 litres. I guess no-one has bothered to retool to a 5 litre
can.

Pints have gone too, and milk usually comes in 1 or 2 litre
containers. The next size down is 600 ml, which just happens
to be almost the same as the 20floz "imperial" pint.

Jim

[Doreen Simmons]

I've been far too long in Japan to answer this specific question, but I
do recall that in my youth coal was typically delivered in cwt.
measures. (I think this was the contents of one sack.)

Stones are still used for body weight; I now know my weight only in kg.
but it has no real meaning for me. (The same applies to the temperature
in F and C. I know what it is in Centigrade in Japan but I don't know
how hot or cold it really is except for the mantra 82=28.)

Eagerly awaiting the time this discussion turns to paper measurements,
which I recall only too clearly; my mother was a stationer and as a
teen I got my first paying summer job in the 3-department specialist
store she managed. When there were no customers in sight, our main job
was to take a ream (144 sheets) of greaseproof paper (delivered wrapped
in brown paper), count it off into quires (24 sheets) with an expert
thumb at one corner, fold it in half and cut it with a large ivory
spatula. I still have one, inherited from my mother. Nine inches by
one, and with rounded edges, it bears the incised logo *KINOCH LTD*
TRADEMARK.

Any offers? (Yesterday I donated a 12-person tea+dining set of Noritake
china to my church's charity auction.)

Doreen severely cutting down and not knowing how much longer I have....

On 2009/10/18, at 5:25, Alan Siegrist wrote:

>
> Mark Spahn writes:
>
>> The word "hundredweight" is rare, except in specialized contexts.
>
> This is true. But may I ask our esteemed British contingent how common
> or
> rare "hundredweight" is there now? I think the "stone" is common for
> body
> weights, but what would your typical British person measure by the
> hundredweight?

Doreen Simmons
jz8d...@asahi-net.or.jp

[pls]

--- JimBreen <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In Australia the gallon (and it was always ~4.5 litre "imperial";
> never the smaller US one) has officially gone, but I refuel my
> lawn mower and chainsaw from a can which for some reason holds
> 4.5 litres. I guess no-one has bothered to retool to a 5 litre
> can.
>
> Pints have gone too, and milk usually comes in 1 or 2 litre
> containers. The next size down is 600 ml, which just happens
> to be almost the same as the 20floz "imperial" pint.

In Okinawa, "large" milk cartons are labeled as containing 946ml. Talk
about not retooling...!

Regards: Hendrik

.
--

--------------------------------------
GyaO! - Anime, Dramas, Movies, and Music videos [FREE]
http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/gyao/

[Alan Siegrist]

Doreen Simmons writes:

> I've been far too long in Japan to answer this specific question, but I
> do recall that in my youth coal was typically delivered in cwt.
> measures. (I think this was the contents of one sack.)

This is wonderful information. Thanks. Coal is something often measured and
sold by the ton, but a typical consumer needs only a small fraction of a ton
for any reasonable purpose.

I did a quick search on coal and cwt, and have found that the vast majority
of the hits turning up were for Britain (or other Commonwealth countries).

Certainly home demand for coal in the US has gone down, being replaced by
the more convenient gas or heating oil, but not too long ago it was
certainly delivered to households.

But despite the cwt probably being a convenient measure for coal, I think
coal is sold by the pound in the US for sub-ton quantities, such as this
40-pound bag here:
http://heating-and-cooling.hardwarestore.com/98-580-stove-fuel/anthracite-nu
t-coal-284554.aspx

I must go now, but perhaps I can look into this further later.

[TimL...@aol.com]

Sorry about the delay in coming back on this one.  In the mid-20th century, I remember half hundredweight sacks of potatoes were standard, and not too difficult to carry around (a whole hundredweight is too heavy if you are going to be carrying the sacks all day); coal and other items were also often in cwt or 1/2 cwt sacks, but this I remember less clearly.

 

Fruit, for example apples, plums, tomatoes, etc. was usually in 1/2 bushel boxes or bushel boxes.  Before the days of forklift trucks 1/2 bushel was a convenient size for "chaining". Imagine a truckload of 1/2 bushel boxes of plums. Someone on the truck throws a box to a person on the ground next to it who throws it to the next person and so on until it reaches the place where the boxes are being stacked where the last person but one catches the boxes and passes them to the stacker who has to stack it before the next one arrives. If you look at the right moment all the boxes in the chain are in mid-air simultaneously. Using this method it is quite possible to chain the boxes round corners and up or down flights of stairs.

 

I should mention that the boxes did not usually have lids, so if one was dropped there was fruit everywhere.  We did drop one in the course of the two weeks when I did this job during my vacation one year.

 

Regards

Tim

[Alan Siegrist]

Tim Leeney writes:

> In the mid-20th century, I remember half hundredweight sacks of potatoes
> were standard, and not too difficult to carry around (a whole
> hundredweight is too heavy if you are going to be carrying the sacks all
> day); coal and other items were also often in cwt or 1/2 cwt sacks, but
> this I remember less clearly.

Yes, of course, the proverbial sack of potatoes! I think potatoes come in
mostly 50-pound sacks here (except for the small 10-pound sacks). I think
there are larger 100-pound or even 150-pound sacks used more in places where
some sort of mechanical carrying contrivances are to be used.

I can't help but think that the simplicity of the American hundredweight
being exactly 100 pounds may have affected how these things were named.
Since an Imperial measure half hundredweight sack of potatoes actually
weighed 56 pounds, it may have been more complicated and unnecessarily
exacting to call it a "56-pound sack" than a half hundredweight.

It is also not unusual to metaphorically refer to heavy things in terms of
100 pound increments such as the proverbial "300 pound gorilla."

I also note that it is common to use "half-ton" or "quarter-ton" to refer to
truck capacities and such.

So I guess these factors may have worked together to eliminate the need for
a unit between the pound and ton.

> Fruit, for example apples, plums, tomatoes, etc. was usually in 1/2 bushel
> boxes or bushel boxes.  Before the days of forklift trucks 1/2 bushel was
> a convenient size for "chaining". Imagine a truckload of 1/2 bushel boxes
> of plums. Someone on the truck throws a box to a person on the ground next
> to it who throws it to the next person and so on until it reaches the
> place where the boxes are being stacked where the last person but one
> catches the boxes and passes them to the stacker who has to stack it
> before the next one arrives. If you look at the right moment all the boxes
> in the chain are in mid-air simultaneously. Using this method it is quite
> possible to chain the boxes round corners and up or down flights of
stairs.

Very interesting. This was also the basis of the "bucket brigade" method of
putting out fires in areas where pumps and hoses were not available. A
well-trained bucket brigade could put a lot of water onto a fire in a short
amount of time. But it was a lot of work and needed a lot of people.

[Alan Siegrist]

I wrote:

> It is also not unusual to metaphorically refer to heavy things in terms of
> 100 pound increments such as the proverbial "300 pound gorilla."

Slight correction here:

I think the proverbial gorilla actually weighs 800 pounds. Mine would be
more of a 300-pound weakling in the world of proverbial gorillas.

Real adult male gorillas evidently weigh 310-450 pounds, so the proverbial
"800-pound gorilla" would be quite a beast.

[Jim Lockhart]

I never heard "Hundert" used in Germany as a unit of weight.

When I was working in Germany (1976-81), my colleagues used to talk of
Zentner, which IIRC was officially 100kg but was generally used to refer
to 50kg. A Pfund (pound) was always reckoned as 500g, even though a
local pound was actually 468g (not sure what it is for the English pound,
so I usually stick with the 500g line for quick reckoning).

Fwiw, sugar, flour, and other similar products are generally handled in
100lbs/50kg bags, but salt comes in 50lbs/25kg bags.

--Jim Lockhart
Hachioji, Tokyo

[Jeff Gedert]

> > It is also not unusual to metaphorically refer to heavy things in terms of
> > 100 pound increments such as the proverbial "300 pound gorilla."

That reminds me of the classic Tony Soprano malapropism about "the 500-
pound elephant in the room".

Given the possible confusion of the various tons/tonnes, it's curious
that "megagram" hasn't gained more traction as a less ambiguous unit
of measurement. I suppose it only takes a few massive mis-shipments of
magnesium and British sports cars to promptly end its adoption.

Jeff

[Roland Hechtenberg]

Jim Lockhart wrote:

> When I was working in Germany (1976-81), my colleagues used to talk of
> Zentner, which IIRC was officially 100kg but was generally used to refer
> to 50kg.
>

That doesn't sound right to me. To the best of my knowledge, a Zentner
always was 50 kg in Germany, but I heard that it was 100 kg in Austria
and Switzerland.

> A Pfund (pound) was always reckoned as 500g, even though a
> local pound was actually 468g (not sure what it is for the English pound,
> so I usually stick with the 500g line for quick reckoning).
>

Again I can't agree with you. I never heard of any other Pfund than one
with 500 g, while the British pound was approximately 10 % less (453.59 g).

Have fun,

Roland Hechtenberg

[Jim Lockhart]

My point is that the meanings of pre-metric terms varies greatly by
region (regardless of country/language, btw, but all the more-so in
pluricentric languages like English and German).

I heard Zentner used most frequently in reference to people's weight
("der wiegt schon zwei Zentner!"), but Pfund was used a lot in reference
to ingredients ("Hau ma' 'nen Pfund Butter 'rein und schlag sie man auf!"),
when it mean 500g. We were taught at school that Pfund = 500g was a
"round" figure because pre-metric Pfund--sometimes still found in
recipes--could mean just about anything between 450g and 550g depend on
whose Pfund/pound it was.

Check a couple of reference works and I think you see what I mean. The
same underlying phenomenon is behind the confusion about US and Imperial
units of measures.

--Jim

--Jim Lockhart
Hachioji, Tokyo

[Roland Hechtenberg]

Jim Lockhart wrote:

> I heard Zentner used most frequently in reference to people's weight
>

With the Zentner I know, zwei Zentner is quite believable, as I weigh
approximately 1.8 Zentner (close to 90 kg).

> We were taught at school that Pfund = 500g was a
> "round" figure because pre-metric Pfund--sometimes still found in
> recipes--could mean just about anything between 450g and 550g depend on
> whose Pfund/pound it was.
>

I was talking about modern times (after WWII), and I never heard Pfund
used in Germany for anything but 500 g.
I doubt that there is anybody present here who can remember the times
before introduction of the metric system in Germany.

> Check a couple of reference works and I think you see what I mean.

I did check various references, but I didn't find any (modern) reference
to anything but a 500 g Pfund for Germany.

I didn't say that theer hadn't been any different values for the Pfund
in the past, just that it sounded very funny for me when you mentioned
hearing about a German Pfund of not 500 g in modern times.

Have fun,

Roland Hechtenberg

[Richard Thieme]

OT, but this must have generated close to the most responses on a thread
this year.

Do I get some kind of award?

Regards,

Richard Thieme

[Jim Lockhart]

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:37:29 +0900
Roland Hechtenberg <rol...@ictv.ne.jp> wrote:

> > I heard Zentner used most frequently in reference to people's weight
>
> With the Zentner I know, zwei Zentner is quite believable, as I weigh
> approximately 1.8 Zentner (close to 90 kg).

Right, this agree with the usage I heard.

> > We were taught at school that Pfund = 500g was a
> > "round" figure because pre-metric Pfund--sometimes still found in
> > recipes--could mean just about anything between 450g and 550g depend on
> > whose Pfund/pound it was.
>
> I was talking about modern times (after WWII), and I never heard Pfund
> used in Germany for anything but 500 g.
> I doubt that there is anybody present here who can remember the times
> before introduction of the metric system in Germany.

That may be true, but I was there 1976-81 and was in a place (bakeries
and confectionery workshops) where people used these things more
frequently (the school I mention was Berufsschule: vocational school). I
was also in an area on the East-West border, and there were people in my
workshop from Silesia, Pommerania, and East Prussia as well as locals
who were in their 40s and 50s at the time (i.e., had experienced more
use of Pfund as a local unit of measure than would be the case now).

> > Check a couple of reference works and I think you see what I mean.
>
> I did check various references, but I didn't find any (modern) reference
> to anything but a 500 g Pfund for Germany.

I'm writing here of historical developments and their influence on
language, and further, about how language tend to change and meanings,
to shift over time.

--Jim Lockhart
Hachioji, Tokyo

[Roland Hechtenberg]

Jim Lockhart wrote:

> That may be true, but I was there 1976-81 and was in a place (bakeries
> and confectionery workshops) where people used these things more
> frequently (the school I mention was Berufsschule: vocational school).

Then it sounds still funnier to me.
I was there from 1942 to 1970, and I never heard of a German
pound with anything but 500 Gramm.
The Viertelpfund was 125 Gramm and the halbes Pfund was 250 Gramm.
During my time, the Pfund was still in normal use, but always as
500 Gramm, and any baker who would have tried to sell a
3-Pfund-Brot weighing less than 1500 Gramm would have been in
trouble.
For what it's worth, my father taught at the Berufsschule and aft
the Handelsschule, and I was quite aware of how Pfund was used there.

Have fun (and 500 Gramm to the Pfund),

Roland Hechtenberg

[Mark Spahn]

Tons and tonnes of adulation!

[Doreen Simmons]

Yes, I think you should; but do we have to quantify it? ;-}

Doreen Simmons
jz8d...@asahi-net.or.jp