Pat and friends: Some of the Indian villages 'still' understand kilogram as *seer* because of illitracy etc. The Weights and Measures Directorate has overlooked *how the kilogram is called* among villagers. This (seer) was the earlier unit for exchange of quantities/commodities; and had 16 'chataank' in the seer, to be of ease in use with 16 annas to the rupee; and likewise we had 16 'girha' to the yard as length measure (if my childhood memory does not fail me). This was also the suggestion of late Rajagopala Chari (Raja ji) during Mr Nehru's days in his ministry. But, that is long ago. The question here, is not *what or how much* is traded BUT implimenting 'metric system' among the educated unwilling lots.It is a matter of time during transition, after which the correct measure is introduced (453.6g to the pound (removed). Cheers! Brij Bhushan Vij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Pat Naughtin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:21956] Re: question >Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:08:33 +1000 > >Dear Brij, > >What is *use of seer*? I have no knowledge of this expression. > >If you mean that the use of 500�grams, as a substitute for a pound, would >facilitate metrication, I disagree with you. > >Cheers, Pat Naughtin CAMS >Geelong, Australia > >on 2002-08-27 00.34, Brij Bhushan Vij at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Hi Pat and John: > > Had this been considered and pound was 'taken' at 500g for daily > > commercial use; like we in India argued for *use of seer*, METRICATION >could > > be imbedded into minds much earlier. Yes, for scientific operations and > > allied *exactness* the pound was to be 453.6g and used as such. > > It may not be late even today, if US industry is willing to gain from >this > > concept! > > Brij B. Vij > > > >> From: "kilopascal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Subject: [USMA:21926] Re: question > >> Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 23:41:36 -0400 > >> > >> 2002-08-25 > >> > >> > >> Pat, > >> > >> I see where you are coming from. Britain, and thus its colonies, have, >a > >> longer tradition of having a "standard pound" and thus this 454 g value >is > >> more set in stone. In all other countries where the various "pounds" > >> existed and varied from locality to locality right up to the time of > >> metrication, there was never an attachment to a "standard pound" and >thus > >> it > >> was easier to just set the value at 500 g without any worry about what >it > >> would affect. And I'm sure there were few recipes written down or that > >> were > >> that critical that the incorporation of the old measures into the new > >> metric > >> ones didn't make much of a difference if they varied somewhat. I'm >believe > >> that even before metrication, any recipe, either oral or written, would > >> have > >> produced varying results based on where it was used, as the FFU varied >so > >> much across Europe. In this regard metrication made recipes more > >> standardised. > >> > >> I just wonder how many Australian recipes would be off balance if the >chef > >> used a 500 g amount when a pound is called for. And since your >response > >> indicates that my comments are not strictly so, can I infer that there >are > >> significant cases where 500 g is used as a valid interpretation of a >pound? > >> I feel that despite Australia's history with the imperial measures, it >too > >> will succumb to the same "shortcuts" others have adopted. Albeit the >time > >> will be longer before all requests for pounds end up with becoming 500 >g. > >> But, it will still happen. It is just a matter of time. > >> > >> John > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Sent: Sunday, 2002-08-25 16:25 > >> Subject: [USMA:21923] Re: question > >> > >> > >> Dear John, > >> > >> on 2002-08-26 02.16, kilopascal at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> <snip> > >>> For example, if an Australian asks for a pound of ham at the > >>> deli counter, the attendant will weigh out 500 g on a pure metric >scale, > >>> price it at 500 g and as far as the store is concerned only a metric > >> amount > >>> was vended. The customer who has no clue as to what a pound is, just > >> the > >>> use of the name, does not feel cheated if he/she did not get exactly > >> what > >> he > >>> asked for based on the American concept of a pound, that is 454 g. > >> <snip> > >> > >> What you say here is not strictly so. I will use your example to >explain. > >> > >> if an Australian asks for a pound of ham at the deli counter, the >attendant > >> will weigh out 450 g on a pure metric scale, price it at the 'per >kilogram' > >> or at the 'per 100 gram rate', and as far as the store is concerned >only a > >> metric amount was vended. The customer wants a pound. She is probably >old > >> and she knows that for her particular recipe (which her grandmother > >> inherited from her grandmother) a pound is required. [It may also be >true > >> that she is young and that she has no clue as to what a pound is � but >this > >> is a digression]. > >> > >> Australian butchers have no tradition that a pound is 500 grams, so >they > >> serve about 450 grams to those who ask for a pound. They know that they >are > >> serving to a recipe size and not to an ignorant person. No doubt, in > >> nations > >> (say France and Germany) where 500 grams to a pound has been common >argot > >> for a century or two, the recipes passed from generation to generation >have > >> been quietly adjusted to suit the fatter pound. This transition has yet >to > >> take place in Australia, but I suppose it could. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Pat Naughtin CAMS > >> Geelong, Australia > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com > > _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
