2002-09-04

>From my 1931 edition of the Meyer's Blitz Lexikon, page 417, the weights and
measures listed for Korea state: Wie in Japan.  Meaning as in Japan.  The
length measure for Japan is listed as the SCHAKU, which is equal to 0,303 m
(303 mm) and the RI, which is equal to 3297 m. I'm sure the BWMA would argue
that the Schaku is the same as the foot and thus Japan uses the foot.  The
Ri seems to be very close to 2 miles and I'm sure the BWMA can make a case
for a Japanese/Korean and British connection.

>From the very statement,  ....."that one is to imagine"..., it is obvious
that the British author changed the original Japanese/Korean unit to that of
British more or less to illustrate a point rather than to be exact in
translation.  The British reading public would not have a concept of a Ri,
so the mile was substituted.  Thus, I see no implication here that the
author was intending to fool his readership into thinking the Koreans used
British miles.

As for Taiwan (formerly Formosa), which in 1931 was part of China, the
Chinese unit of weight (mass) was the PIKUL.  The Pikul was divided into
1600 TAELS and was equal to 60 kg.  Thus 1 Tael was equal to 37.5 g.  I
don't know if there was something in-between.  But, neither of these is a
pound.  My thought on that matter is that the sayings that were quoted in
the article might have been phrases coming out of an English text book with
the Taiwanese promoters having no clue as to what a pound is and what they
are promoting.  One interesting point, is I can see where the Tael is close
to the ounce and the BWMA propaganda would argue that the Chinese used
ounces.

 The Chinese length units were the TSCHI = 10 TSUN = 0.358 m and the LI =
644,4 m.  Again, one can say the Chinese used a foot length (TSCHI), an inch
unit (TSUN) and a mile unit (LI), as each of these are very close to their
British equivalents.

But, no matter what these old units were equal to at one time, they are
gone, replaced by SI.  Even if the names might persist in usage even until
today, what is important is that the devices used to measure with are only
available in metric only.  That is the most important thing and the BWMA
knows it.

John






----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, 2002-09-03 18:30
Subject: [USMA:22052] Korean mile?


> A lengthy footnote from page 69 of "The Map that Changed the World," by
> Simon Winchester (author of the bestseller "The Professor and the Madman,"
> which some of you OED fans may have read):
> "In Korea there has long been a tacit recognition that small earthly
> processes, carried out over millions of years, can in the end have a
> geologically significant result. There is in Korean mythology a famous
> measuring unit that denotes a era long period of time. To gauge how long
> that period is, one is asked to imagine a mountain made of solid granite,
> EXACTLY ONE MILE HIGH. Once every thousand years an angel flies down from
> heaven and brushes the summit of the hill with her wings. The unit of time
> represents the number of years it would take for the angel and her
> summit-brushing wing to erode the mountain down to sea level. Given long
> enough, of course, she would do it. As would a stream, or even the
> wind--providing that geological time was encompassing enough-and was far,
> far longer than the mere six millennia allowed by Bishop Ussher." (caps
> added)
> The obvious question is this: did Korean mythology really use a "mile" as
> a unit of measurement?
> (Bishop James Ussher was an Irish prelate who published "Annals of the
> World," in 1650, wherein he "calculated" that Creation began on Monday, 23
> October 2004, at 9:00 a.m. in the morning. One cannot help but wonder
> which time zone God was in when he started at 9:00 a.m.)
> The book is a delightful scientific history, although I do not recall
> seeing a single non-English unit of measurement in it. Of course, since
> its subject matter covers roughly 1760 to 1850 in England, that it not at
> all surprising.
> Jim Elwell
>
>

Reply via email to