Martin, Writing "hectare square" or "hectare in the form of a square" or "hectare (in the form of any other geometric figure)" would cover many geometric shapes for those who want to be specific, and avoid the *double square* of "square hectare" that Jim noted.
Gene. ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:53:13 +0100 >From: "Martin Vlietstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [USMA:41094] RE: Square hectares >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > >Is the term "square hectare" really redundant? Surely a piece of land that >is 100 m by 100 m can be descried as a "square hectare"? After all, it is a >square. > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >Of James Frysinger >Sent: 14 June 2008 16:27 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:41089] Square hectares > >The June 06 issue of Science contains a fascinating series of articles >written by Andrew Lawler on the Indus people. I spotted a glitch in the >first one that stimulated the following note to the author, with copy to >the editors at Science. > >Jim > >Dear Mr. Lawler, > >I am reading your fascinating article, "Boring no More", on the Indus >people and I have just come across a jarring phrase. You speak of the >Mohenjo Daro covering "at least 200 square hectares". "Square hectares" >is redundant, as would be "cubic liters". The former is a unit of area >and the latter a unit of volume. > >Certainly this must have been just a "slip of the pen". I am rather >amazed that a technical editor at Science did not catch this error. > >Otherwise, thank you very much for your fascinating articles in this >series. I look forward to learning more about these ancient people and >their civilization as I read your articles. > >-- >James R. Frysinger >632 Stony Point Mountain Road >Doyle, TN 38559-3030 > >(H) 931.657.3107 >(C) 931.212.0267 >
