Sigh. I should have known there was no way I could measure up to you, Unc. I’m through trying. Gotta draw the line somewhere, I guess.
:smack: Ryan, I was answering your question in regards to the spelling of aluminum. Not the meter. Madonn’.
Heh. Next time someone catches a typo in one of my posts, I’m gonna respond with “Well, in my opinion, that’s how the word should be spelled.”
Look, Ryan, if you want to argue that both spellings of “meter” are techincally correct or that neither spelling is more correct than another, then that’s fine. Mr. Kennedy is making a similar argument very well, quite coherently and devoid of an overly defensive 'tude. But don’t expect me to buy that rules of spelling are based on personal preference.
Yeah, The Ryan, I dictate the rules for “our” spelling. (that’s more sarcasm, sorry) Sheesh, stop acting annoyed that other posters disagree with you. It happens.
As fun as it is having my arguments misrepresented and have humorless backhanded attacks on my “qualifications”, I think I’m pretty much done trying to respond to ya, Ryan.
Godspeed, and may all of your e’s forever preceed your r’s.
My question was with regards to this quote (my bolding):
Before you resort to physical violence (even if it is virtual), you might want to actually review the facts.
I didn’t say that spelling is in general a matter of opinion, just that “‘meter’ is incorrect spelling” is a matter of opinion.
So what is your point? That you claim the ability to dictate the rules for spelling? Or that you don’t have the ability to dictate spelling? I don’t see how either interpretation helps your case.
The whole point of the part that you quoted was that it is you that object to people disagreeing with you. When you say “this is scientific fact” and that anyone who disagrees with you is “wrong”, you’re pretty much declaring yourself to not being open to other people’s views.
Well, to quote someone you clearly think very highly of
Uh huh. I have yet to be annoyed by any of the contrary opinions provided here.
Seeing as how implying that I am full of myself is an unjustified and ad hominem attack, I suggest that you stick to the factual topic of the mailbag article or take your beef with little old me to the Pit, Sport.
They kinda did the same thing with the meter. It started out (in committee) as the length of the “seconds” pendulum–the length of a pendulum that takes one second to swing from one side to the other.
That’s why, in m/s/s, the acceleration of gravity is pi squared. Approx. Had they actually used the seconds pedulum, instead of 1/40000000 the earth circumference, it would be nearly exact.
RM, I thought they had considered the pendulum, but felt it varied too much between poles and equator to be useful. (Not that 1/40,000,000 Earth’s circumference is that easy to measure.) Maybe that’s what you meant by “in committee”.
Arnold, no problem, and I hope I didn’t sound snippy. Just wanting to clarify. It’s difficult to convey pronunciation in writing - not all of us know any agreed ascii symbols for sounds.
Alphagene, The Ryan, I’ve lost track of what exactly you two are arguing over. Let’s not get sidetracked by who’s got what attitude and who’s not qualified for what. Let’s get back to logically sound arguments, okay?
Alphagene, you say the BIPM chose “metre” as officially correct, and therefore it is the only “correct” spelling in English. John W. Kennedy replied that the BIPM listed both spellings as acceptable in English, but that they chose to remain consistent and use “metre” based on some ISO standard. But the NIST (which is the US agency for determining the measurements) has chosen “meter”. Thus by both those sources, either spelling is acceptable and correct in English.
paekeung said (way up):
Let me see if I can explain it. They are using the standard gravity field. Since it is a constant, it can be factored in and out for convenience. It is easier and more convenient to weigh an item rather than measure it’s mass (spring scale vs. equal arm balance). However, the “answer” is given in mass units, as that is the measure of amount of material. The 9.81 m/s[sup]2[/sup] is assumed in the measurement. Your butcher and cocaine dealer are measuring in weight and then converting to mass, they just do it in one convenient step instead of two. If they think they are weighing in grams (or kilograms), then they are mistaken.
Don’t get snippy :). My suggestion that Ryan take his more personal accusations elsewhere was an attempt to keep thing on track, here. A logical discussion has been my goal this whole time. Dissenting opinions don’t offend me. Any assistance I get in correctly modifying a statement from my article, even if it’s tangential to the body of the article, is appreciated.
But I don’t think NIST really determines anything. It’s hard for me to tell anyway, the NIST’s mission statement is a bit vague. Any help decoding it would be appreciated. But here’s my take on the whole thing:
The definitions of the metric system units are determined by the BIPM. From what I can tell, the international community decides on definitions, and its up to each country to enforce it. NIST doesn’t make the rules regarding the SI, they just enforce them here, as it were. They don’t define the metric standards, they just maintain them for American use. Ultimately the NIST answers to BIPM. If the BIPM made any changes to aspects of the metric system, the NIST would have to play along.
Again, I know the NIST spells it “meter”. I know Americans spell it “meter”. I know I spell it “meter”. It’s in the dictionary (athough its use a unit of length is listed as its third definition in M-W) But worldwide, we’re the aberration. We changed the spelling essentially on a whim. That was the point I was trying to get across in my article. “Meter” is not the original spelling and we’re the only ones who use it.
I had a friend in college whose name was Francis, but everyone called him Bo. Is Bo an acceptable name? Apparently it was. But if you ask me what his technically correct name is, I’d defer to the commitee in charge of assigning him a name (his parents), rather than the name change he decided on years afterwards. So I would say that technically his correct name is Francis, even though I’d never call him that to his face. 
Once again, the BIPM, as such, has absolutely no opinion on how the word is spelled or pronounced in any language other than French. In their English translations of their official French documents, which translations they explicitly identify as non-authoritive, they explicitly state that both “metre” and “meter” are used in English, and that they use “metre” in their English translations in accordance with ISO standard 31/1992. I have no idea what ISO standard 31/1992 says, or even what it’s about, and I have no idea what its standing is in the United States.
And the Office of Weights and Measures, a department of the NIST, is the supreme Federal authority in these matters. (There is also the National Conference on Weights and Measures, which is the linkage between the OWM and the 50 state Weights-and-Measures bureaus.)
Now, if you want to look up ISO standard 31/1992, perhaps you will find some bolstering for your belief that “meter” is somehow wrong. But the BIPM doesn’t say so, and neither does the competent US authority.
Hm. I think we have a disagreement in our fundamental beliefs here: you seem to think that there is a language called “English”, which has spellings that can be considered “correct” and “internationally-approved”. And since you’re talking about spellings, I must assume you’re referring to written language and not any form of spoken language.
I take a different viewpoint; American-written-English, British-written-English, etc., are different enough that we can consider them "scribolect"s of each other. In other words, although they are for the most part mutually intelligible to each other, each has their own rules in terms of common vocabulary, idiom, and spelling.
Word game and puzzle enthusiasts are well-aware of this issue; Scrabble tournaments and other word-based competitions are careful to specify the dictionary of allowed words (usually the Oxford English Dictionary in the UK, and Webster’s Third New International in the US).
In my mind, “meter” is correct in US English (and others), “metre” is correct in UK English (and others). There is no “correct” spelling without specifying which scribolect of English one is using as context, just like there is no “correct” way to pronounce “schedule” without specifying which dialect of English one is using as context.
You say that you think that NIST doesn’t determine anything. Well, in the same vein, I think that BIPM doesn’t proscribe standardized spellings. They define the actual measurement standard, and we can call and spell the unit whatever we want (as have other countries). But since the BIPM wants to give English reports, they had to decide on some scribolect to use. This is not really that much different than a writer who needs a third-person pronoun to include people of both genders, and just chooses one arbitrarily – he’s not intending to ostracize the other sex, even though the sentence may look like it. See the last sentence for an example.
When you say “technically correct,” I suspect you really mean “historically correct”. Which I addressed in my last message with lots of examples anyway. “Meter” may not be the original spelling (although even that’s debatable), but it’s the correct spelling for us now.
As for your friend Bo, suppose he went and got a legal name change. Would you still consider Francis “technically correct”? Which authority would you believe? What does “technically” mean when applied to a name anyway?
No, Bo would be then become technically correct, in my view. My point was that just because a lot of (or a majority of) people call someting by a certain accepted name, doesn’t make it correct. It would require something more official (like a legal name change) than just a whim of a large group of people.
Poor Bo. Now everyone knows his real name.
Anyway, I have no problem with changing “technically correct” to “historically correct”, as that more accurately portrays my intended meaning.
The “accepted but not technically correct spelling” scenario does exist elsewhere in science (c.f. alumin(i)um) so it’s certainly not unthinkable that the same idea can apply to the meter.
But unless any of us can get our hands on an official document that says either way, no analogies or examples are going to get us any closer to the truth. What the hell, it’s worth banging out an email to a bunch of these acronymical organizations. I’ll try to whip something up today.
I wasn’t trying to make any sort of a linguistic argument anyway, just a historical and scientific one, as that was the focus of the article.
[Edited by Alphagene on 03-20-2001 at 11:20 AM]
Alphagene’s Staff Report has more details (Huygens himself proposed it a century earlier?), but clearly the final definition was only a refinement of that one. Sure, the pendulum varies, depending on where you are–but it sure beats having to measure the earth’s circumference! Just think of the errors involved in that. Either way, you’d end up with some standard meter bar.
The actual reason they decided to go with the earth’s circumference standard? They got a government grant to send an expedition to measure it.
{quote]Originally posted by RM Mentock *
(Huygens himself proposed it a century earlier?)
[/QUOTE]
I haven’t been able to find any more detail on this other than “The astronomer Christian Huygens suggested defining the meter as the length of a pendulum having a period of one second” from the NIST. Huygens died in 1695 so whenever he proposed this pendulum idea it was at least 96 or so years before the present meter was established by the FAS.
[Edited by Alphagene on 03-20-2001 at 03:10 PM]
Alphagene, making sarcastic and condescending comments is not a good way to have a “logical discussion”. I don’t see the logic in setting a rude tone, and then complaining when I respond in kind. And asking me to take my comments to the Pit really belies your claim to have not been annoyed by opposing opinions.
Sarcasm and logically sound arguments aren’t mutually exclusive. Cecil demonstrates this fact weekly. And I think my participation in this thread is more than indicative that I am willing to be challenged and even proven wrong so that a correct factual answer can be arrived at.
Ryan, again, if you disagree with the information I presented in the article then this is the place to bring it up. But if you want to accuse me of being rude, or you find my sarcasm offensive then this is not the place for it. Disagree with the information column? Fine. Disagree with my presentation style? Take it to the Pit. You’ve posted there before. You should know this by now.
This is the second time you have used this forum to attack me rather than the information in my column. This is Comments of Staff Reports, not Comments on Staff Reporters.
If I refuse to entertain any more of your dissatisfaction with my posting style in this thread, it’s not out of condescension or annoyance. It’s out of respect for the rules of this forum. Take your rants to the forum that was created for rants or don’t rant at all.
It certainly is possible to use both, but not at the same time.
By “this” do you mean this thread, or my most recent message? And again I wonder why you feel free to make personal attacks, but consider inappropiate for others to do so. You were the first one to make a personal attack, not me.
So your being rude shows no disrespect for the rules of this forum, but my showing annoyance at your rudeness does? Seems to me anything you can do in this forum, I can talk about.
You claim that you are “willing to be challenged and even proven wrong”, yet in the very same message you refer to my disagreement with you as a “rant”. You’re not being very consistent. And if you’re so willing to being proven wrong, how about admitting that this statement was false?
Or are you going to continue to try to change the subject to my posting style (while at the same time complaining that I don’t have the right to discuss your posting style)?
Ryan will you please just SHUT UP!
Jesus.
OK, enough. I admit that the line is a fuzzy one – when humourous or sarcastic comments add a spark of fun, and when they become a distraction. However, just because the line is fuzzy doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Any further comments about personal style, rudeness, sarcasm, or whatever, will be deleted from this topic. You want to continue that kinda stuff, take it to the PIT.
I has spoken. The line is drawn here: _________________
I’m sure the basic facts are correct, but clearly the NIST site is wrong. They meant a period of two seconds. Way back when, the timing of a pendulum was from side to side, not side to side and back. But what we call the “period” was two seconds, not one.