I posted this to a colleague this morning. Jim
---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: A few comments on your review Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:03:50 -0500 From: James Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Cathy<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Cathy, I read your critical review of Sebank's book on "Destruction" today and I have some comments. Please forgive me for sending these unsolicited remarks. First, I applaud your use of metric units in your piece. You did so without providing non-metric equivalents, even parenthetically. This reflects the reality that Americans no longer need such "translations". I have experience in helping to write metric style guides for three American and international committees on which I serve. Two of these committees include representatives from our National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), which is the guardian and patron of the modern metric system in the United States. NIST is our representative on the international committee that defines and maintains the International System of Units (SI) and in that role NIST defines how it is stylistically realized in the U.S. Two NIST publications in particular are provided to Americans free of charge for this purpose. If you wish, I can send you the citations and the source from which you may obtain free copies. Based on my experience in this field, I have a couple of comments on your use of metric units. At one point in your review, you comment on flames moving through the streets at a speed of "over 150 kilometers an hour". The proper wording, according to NIST and other U.S. metric standards, would be "over 150 kilometers per hour" (or you could have written "150 km/h"). The word "per" is always used to indicate division (in this case distance divided by time) when unit names are spelled out. Thank you for avoiding the heinous sin of using a slash (/) for the division as in kilometers/hour; such mixing of mathematical symbols and words is strongly taboo. It's 150 kilometers per hour or 150 km/h, the latter (symbolic) form being more readily understandable to an international readership and thus more greatly preferred in written documents. Later, you refer to the Germans clearing away rubble --- "42.8 meters for every inhabitant of Dresden alone". Unless you are referring to a distance (such as frontage along a street), you probably meant to indicate a volume of rubble. In that case, you probably meant to write "42.8 cubic meters". One could also write 42.8 m3 (where the "3" is in superscript position), but newspapers tend to be reluctant to use superscripts (although most typesetting programs probably now allow it). Again, I was glad to see your use of metric units in your writing, thus making it accessible to a wider readership. (I have a student from Hong Kong in my physics class who asked me what a mile is, since he kept seeing references to outside of class.) The Chicago Manual of Style, the AP Stylebook, and many other such references give incorrect advice on the statement of quantities, so it would benefit composition instructors to learn the proper way to include quantities in written documents. I can strongly recommend the two NIST publications I have in mind. Let me know if you want the citations. Also, let me know if you and your department would like me to give some advice to your composition instructors on this issue. A 45-minute department seminar would be ample, if your department is interested. I also applaud the Post and Courier for publishing your review without conversion of the metric units that you used. For that reason, I am including them as an information addressee on this. I make my offer of a short seminar on metric writing style available to them as well. regards, Jim -- James R. Frysinger Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist Senior Member, IEEE http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Office: Physics Lab Manager, Lecturer Dept. of Physics and Astronomy University/College of Charleston 66 George Street Charleston, SC 29424 843.953.7644 (phone) 843.953.4824 (FAX) Home: 10 Captiva Row Charleston, SC 29407 843.225.0805
