Actually, the non-American way of spelling a demand drawn on a bank is cheque
(no 'c' before the 'q').
In terms of pronunciation (and a bit off topic I admit), there are something
like 6 or 7 ways of pronouncing -ough.
Finally, I am reminded of the old joke about a newly married couple on their
honeymoon, and the wife wrote to her mother saying: "Fred and I had a long row
this morning." The mother went bananas, untill she remembered that the couple
were holidaying on the Norfolk Broads... (For the benefit of US readers, the
Norfolk Broads is a part of England famed for its rivers and waterways.)
John F-L
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremiah MacGregor
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 3:07 PM
Subject: [USMA:44857] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
There is also tow and toe, bow and bough. Then bow can have two different
pronunciations depending on its meaning. Then there is Polish (people from
Poland) and polish (to make something shine). The people should be called
Pollacks. That is what they call themselves.
Then there is check, which means a mark of approval or a bank note. However,
the bank note is spelled checque outside the US to distinguish the different
meanings. Then again there is the Czech people, the name pronounced like
check.
Even bank has two meanings, the land next to a river or a place to keep
money. Maybe the place to keep money should be spelled as banque (along with
checque) to note the difference.
I won't even get into to all of the different pronunciations for the -ough
spelling.
Sometimes simplicity causes confusion.
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: STANLEY DOORE <stan.do...@verizon.net>
To: jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com; U.S. Metric Association
<usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 9:20:43 AM
Subject: Re: [USMA:44848] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
American English uses to and too for two different meanings. So
spellings of metre and meter, and litre and liter etc.would be consistent
with clearly different meanings and would improve comprehension.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremiah MacGregor
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 8:02 AM
Subject: [USMA:44848] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
I don't understand their short-sightedness in preferring the -er spelling
over the -re. They should prefer the spelling that is already accepted in the
English speaking world. Since English is already the international language of
trade and SI is the international language of measurement, than there should be
harmonization and agreement as to spellings, at least in terms of technical
use.
As I noted in a previous post, there are logical reasons for preferring the
-re spelling for metre and litre. Don't the people at the NIST understand
logic?
I'm sure the person who made the decision at ASTM to prefer the -er
spelling didn't understand the logic of the -re spelling either.
Jerry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John M. Steele <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net>
To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:43:25 AM
Subject: [USMA:44844] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
I would agree that both spellings are acceptable in the US. NIST
SP330 simply says the -er spellings are preferred. (Just as l and L can be used
as the symbol for liter, but L is preferred.)
I am a bit surprised by ASTM. They are one of the professional
organizations that jointly publish SI10. There, they go along with -er
spelling. Not that either is wrong, but they are inconsistent. Do any of the
pages give a rationale?
--- On Sat, 4/25/09, John Frewen-Lord <j...@frewston.plus.com> wrote:
From: John Frewen-Lord <j...@frewston.plus.com>
Subject: [USMA:44842] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Date: Saturday, April 25, 2009, 2:47 AM
I agree with Jerry on this one. Both spellings are acceptable to
me, but the -re spelling makes a bit more sense as a whole (and as Jerry points
out harmonises with the rest of the world).
Still, I would suggest the -re spelling is acceptable in the US.
I don't know about the latest editions, but my copy of ASTM E 621 - 84,
Standard Practice for the Use of Metric (SI) Units in Building Design and
Construction (Committee E-6 Supplement to E 380) uses the -re spelling
throughout (see attached scan).
John F-L
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremiah MacGregor
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 4:03 AM
Subject: [USMA:44833] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
I can't believe the US is so arrogant that they have to make such
an issue over spelling. I don't see why both ways can't be accepted. We use
centre and theatre in the US, so why not litre and metre?
Maybe it is time for the US to adopt the ISO and IEC standards.
Being different in a global market is the surest way to lose business. A
bankrupt economy doesn't have the option to go against the grain. That is most
likely the main reason the US is bankrupt.
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Patrick Moore <pmo...@asnt.org>
To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 12:48:35 PM
Subject: [USMA:44783] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
Here are two answers for why to buy IEEE/ASTM SI-10 when BIPM is
free.
1.. To spell meter etc., the BIPM uses the spelling –re, which
is unacceptable in edited American English. I mention this, realizing that some
readers in this group are livid that metricians in the USA persist in opening
our eggs at the small end. But there it is, one answer.
2.. Many ASTM and IEEE standards - and so (we hope) many
industry contracts - specify use of IEEE/ASTM SI-10. For many purposes in the
USA, it can achieve regulatory force in a way that BIPM does not.
It would be nice to download IEEE/ASTM SI-10 for free.
I am not making a recommendation here, just answering a
question.. My original question, asking for the latest edition, was
bibliographic.
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeremiah MacGregor <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com>
Reply-To: <jeremiahmacgre...@rocketmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Subject: [USMA:44717] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
Why pay for a publication from the ANSI when the same information
is available for free from the BIPM.
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John M. Steele <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net>
To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:01:31 PM
Subject: [USMA:44688] Re: IEEE/ASTM SI-10
Latest edition is 2002. Here is a link to it at ANSI:
http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=SI10-2002
That edition corresponds to 7th edition of SI Brochure. I
understand it is currently being revised to latest edition of SI Brochure and
NIST SP 330. I don't know the schedule, or the extent of revisions.
.
--- On Wed, 4/15/09, Patrick Moore <pmo...@asnt.org> wrote:
From: Patrick Moore <pmo...@asnt.org>
Subject: [USMA:44687] IEEE/ASTM SI-10
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 11:29 AM
What is the latest publication year/edition of IEEE/ASTM SI-10,
"Standard for the Use of the International System of Units (SI): The Modern
Metric System"? It is difficult to find it in the ASTM catalog or website
or the IEEE site: many documents reference it but the standard itself does not
come up, for me anyway. Thanks.
