I have significant concerns about this kind of phenomenon, EVEN if they are not tied up to a specific fixed value. Why? Because we're NOT supposed to reintroduce terms related to measurements that are supposed to have died, period! Folks must adhere to what is a reality out there. We simply don't want the proliferation of these terms again because, like it or not, those who DO use these mediocre units would say: aha, you see? Imperial measures haven't die, on the contrary, people like them and that's why we will fight to the death to preserve our heritage!!!
Just the thought of hearing these things gives me the creeps. No, I'm not being fanatical, but I believe this argument of mine does have serious merit. We should rather encourage the "popularism" of metric units instead. Call them clicks, mils, whatever, but please, do NOT resurrect old names, for crying out loud. Marcus On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 10:02:14 Pat Naughtin wrote: >Dear > >In response to your letter (below), I have several comments. > >The group who coordinated metric conversion in Australia were extremely >imaginative and forward looking when they chose the values for Australian >metric quantities. They clearly saw that by slightly increasing each of the >main cooking quantities, by between 9 % and 10 %, then recipes would most >readily convert from old measures to metric. Examples are: > >2 lbs. (avdp.) to 1 kg flour = 10 % increase >1 pint of milk (imp.) to 600 mL milk = 9.5 % increase >1/2 pint of milk (imp.) to 300 mL milk = 9.5 % increase >1 cup liquid (8 fl. oz. imp.) to 1 metric cup = 9.1 % increase >1/2 cup liquid (4 fl. oz. imp.) to 1/2 metric cup = 9.1 % increase >1 oz. (avdp) to 30 grams = 9.4 % increase >1 fl. oz. (imp.) to 30 mL = 9.5 % increase > >Prior to metrication, Australian teaspoons and tablespoons had no fixed or >coordinated values - their sizes varied randomly. The Australian metric >conversion cooking leaders surveyed available spoons and decided that a >value of 5 mL would reflect and slightly increase the size of a level >teaspoon and that 20 mL would do the same for level tablespoons. They also >ignored all saltspoons, dessertspoons, lean teaspoons, and heaped spoonfuls. > >In the light of the values given above, it was decided to have milk and >other (liquid) dairy products slightly increased (by 9.5 %) to fit in with >other frequently used cooking measures. In this way if you converted 1 lb. >to 500 grams of flour (up 10 %) and added it to 600 mL of milk (up by >9.5 %) the overall amount would increase slightly but - most importantly - >the proportions would remain almost the same and there would be little, if >any, need to do clumsy calculations in a busy kitchen. > >*** > >The Australian language is remarkable in that it has little regional >variation even though it is quite large nation on a single continent of some >8 Mm2 (or 7 686 849 km2 to be more exact). > >However, there is one place that Australians carefully preserve their >linguistic diversity in the pub. Here is a list of the most common names >of glasses, but be warned there are many others. > >New South Wales: Glass (200 mL), Middy (285 mL), Schooner (425 mL) >Northern Territory: Six (200 mL), Seven (285 mL), Handle (425 mL) >Queensland: Glass (200 mL), Pot (285 mL), Schooner (425 mL) >South Australia: Butcher (200 mL), Schooner (285 mL), Pint (425 mL) >Tasmania: Seven (200 mL), Ten (285 mL), Pint (425 mL) >Victoria: Glass (200 mL), Pot (285 mL) >Western Australia: Bobby (200 mL), Glass (285 mL), Pot (425 mL) > >It9s interesting to note that some common terms, between states, refer to >different sized glasses, and the names that clearly refer to the old ounces >and pint sizes: six9, seven9, ten9, and pint9 are only approximately >related to the old measures if at all and they are all smaller. > >*** > >Currently, the pub industry is reintroducing the word pint back into >Australia. However I stress that it is the 'word' pint that is being >reintroduced; there appears to be no thought of reintroducing the quantity >of a pint - either from the UK or the USA. Recently a friend ordered a >'pint' of Guinness in a country pub in Victoria; the 'pint' came in a can, >clearly labelled 440 mL, which was poured into a 'pint' glass and this >filled it (including the froth) to the brim. Clearly my friend received a >'pint' of 440 mL. > >The most glaring case of pint-o-mania in Australian pubs is a pub in Punt >Road in Melbourne recently it renamed itself 'The Pint on Punt'. It's nice >alliteration but it's lousy metrology. > >Dear Anna, >I'll give you one guess as to why Pat is such an expert on beer glass sizes! >I, on the other hand, drink wine, and there is no such thing as a 'standard' >when it comes to a 'glass' of wine. That's exactly what they are. An >indeterminate quantity of a red or white liquid in a glass container. >Pat's wife Wendy > >Cheers, > >Pat Naughtin >CAMS - Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist > - United States Metric Association >ASM - Accredited Speaking Member > - National Speakers Association of Australia >Member, International Federation for Professional Speakers >-- > >Anna's letter >Can I conduct a straw poll of those who have lived in Australia on this >list? > >Since I was old enough to go to pubs in Australia (late 1970s), I have >never heard anyone there ask for a pint of beer. I lived in South >Australia and Victoria. > >How many of us have actually heard this being used (and if so where)? > >I ask this, because as a group, we're saying that this term is still >current in Australia, but modified to 600ml. That is just not my >experience at all. > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
