I absolutely agree it is a permitted construction; however it strikes me as clear that 2 square meters and 2 meters squared are equivalent and that both mean 2 m², neither means 4 m² (a 2 m x 2 m square). The text clearly says the name of the unit is raised to a power in both cases. It does NOT say the numeric value is raised to the power in either case. In English only, there is an exception allowed to place square or cubic ahead of a unit of length. It is important that it mean the same thing as the other allowed construction and the same thing as the symbol when expanded to words in other languages.
________________________________ From: Patrick Moore <pmo...@asnt.org> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Mon, January 17, 2011 8:38:09 AM Subject: [USMA:49540] Re: Screen size conundrum NIST SP330 (2008) Sec 5.2 goes on to say: “However, in the case of area or volume, as an alternative the modifiers ‘square’ or ‘cubic’ may be used, and these modifiers are placed before the unit name, but this applies only in English.” BIPM (2006) says the same thing. This is a concession to the language’s descriptions of area, in which two meters squared means 2 x 2.... ASTM/IEEE SI 10 (2002) also uses the phrase “square meter” in its conversion table. None of these three documents uses “meter squared” anywhere. They are of course concerned with unit symbols and are not usage guides. The meaning of “two meters squared,” as of “two inches squared” and “two feet squared,” is a feature of the language and not a committee charge. Semanticists, however, do not consult standards to see how the language works. Instead, they observe how native speakers use it. Suppose a fabric store that sells fabric by the meter. If one orders two meters squared of cloth, the purchaser could be given and charged for four square meters, unless first the salesperson or purchaser clarified a different meaning. Consider also a nonrectilinear area. A child’s circular wading pool might be one square meter in area. But because it is circular, a department store selling it would not call it “one meter squared.” To repeat, the meaning is a feature of the language and not something that can be changed by a usage document (and BIPM is not that). = = = = On 1/14/11 2:42 PM, "John M. Steele" <jmsteele9...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: Section 5.2 of the SI Brochure (and also NIST SP330) disagrees that 3 meters squared is 9 square meters. It is 3 square meters. Either construction is allowed and equivalent for areas and volumes. For units other than length, unit squared and unit cubed is required. One may not refer to square seconds, only seconds squared. The power attaches to the unit (and prefix if any), not the numeric value. = = = From: Patrick Moore <pmo...@asnt.org> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Cc: "mech...@illinois.edu" <mech...@illinois.edu> Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 12:22:31 PM Subject: [USMA:49514] Re: Screen size conundrum I see less ambiguity in saying "square meters": I have heard some people say things like 3 square meters = 3 meters squared. In fact 3 meters squared = 9 square meters, as you know. Thanks.
