Yet another British advertiser has disregarded the fact that Britain's younger generation are almost exclusively metric-educated.

This time the culprit is mobile 'phone company Orange.

In a recent advert, featuring a boy who looks around 11 to 14, with a train station in the background, the slogan is:

"The wise man learns to get train times on his 'phone. The wiser man uses them to avoid the 50 yard dash. Dial 343 or visit your local Orange stockist to Learn".

Surprisingly, the metric equivalent (45 metres and 72 centimetres) is not even put in brackets afterwards.

Surely by now the E.U. has acquired sufficient powers to put a stop to this kind of thing?

Tony Bennett has shown his ignorance of the metriuc system by writing "45 metres and 72 centimetres".

Just as one would never say "one inch and half an inch", but rather "one and a half inches", "45 metres and 72 centimetres" shuold be written "45.72m" or spoken as "forty five point seven two metres".

re (Martin): "Tony Bennett has shown his ignorance of the metric system by writing "45 metres and 72 centimetres. Just as one would never say 'one inch and half an inch', but rather 'one and a half inches'...".

REPLY:

But, Martin, you have forgotten that in the British system, two different words are often combined in stating a weight or a measurement - indeed, that is one of the many superior features of customary measurements.

Common examples would be:

(Height of person) "Five feet two inches", or

(Weight of person) "Thirteen stone seven pounds", or

(Weight of baby) "Six pounds four ounces".

Using language like this tends to make the figures more memorable, since fewer numbers are usually employed than in the metric system

The only thing that makes metric figures "less memerable" is pedantic conversions from pro-imperialists deliberately trying to make it sound more complicated that it really is.

"fourty five point seven metres" would have done the job quite nicely.

Hell, in most instances "fourty six metres" would have sufficed.

Just because it's metric doesn't mean that you're not allowed to round off figures or use some common sense.

P.S. Did you notice how the word "point" in the above example nicely breaks the figure into two easily memorised numbers?
So much for "one of the many superior features of customary measurements" !

<<
But, Martin, you have forgotten that in the British system, two different words are often combined in stating a weight or a measurement - indeed, that is one of the many superior features of customary measurements
>>

On the contrary, this is one of the inferior features of customary units as it make manipulations of the units awkward. Try finding the area of a rectangle having a length of 3 yards 2 feet and 5 inches and a breadth of 2 yards 1 foot and 11 inches.

Now try finding the area of a rectangle having a length of 3.47m and a breadth of 2.41m. The metric version has far fewer calculations.

Now look at the number of characters used to represent the two measurements described above. If we use the symbols for yards, feet and inches aas defined by the EU directove 80/181/EEC (the only place in English law as far as I know that actually defines what symbols should be used for these units) we have 3yd 2ft 5in (11 characters - embedded blanks count as a character). The equivalent metric representation uses only 5 characters.

Another reason why this is an inferior aspect of Imperial/Custopmary units is that in many instances the units have been shoehorned into a relationship - why for example is 14 pounds = 1 stone a superior type of relationship?

<<
Try finding the area of a rectangle having a length of 3 yards 2 feet and 5 inches and a breadth of 2 yards 1 foot and 11 inches.
>>

Yards and feet are never used in combination.
The fact that you used them in combination just proves that you wrote this problem solely to point out a "weakness" in the imperial system that does not exist in reality.

<<
Yards and feet are never used in combination.
>>

Seldom used in combination, but I remember using them in combination in arithmetic problems when I was at school (in the 1950's).

<<<The only thing that makes metric figures "less memerable" is pedantic conversions from pro-imperialists deliberately trying to make it sound more complicated that it really is.>>>

Why they still bother with these pedantic conversions is beyond me. Desperation maybe?

<<<"fourty five point seven metres" would have done the job quite nicely.

Hell, in most instances "fourty six metres" would have sufficed.>>>

Surely in this instance "50 metres" is plenty accurate enough. Just because metric makes it easy to be as accurate as you want to be, doesn't mean we have to talk like scientists in everyday conversation.

Martin: "Seldom used in combination, but I remember using them in combination in arithmetic problems when I was at school (in the 1950's)."

I would guess that it was done solely to give you an extra conversion in the problem to test your ability.

<<
I would guess that it was done solely to give you an extra conversion in the problem to test your ability.
>>

Possibly it was, but £ s d was certainly a reality.

(For the benefit of US readers, the UK currency prior to 1971 (and prior to 1961 in South Africa) was 12 pence (singular penny) to the shilling and 20 shiilings to the pound. Thankfully those days are now long gone, SOuth Africa having metricated in 1961 and the UK in 1971).

Yes! Praise the Lord that we did away with a sensible surrency system. Hallelujah!

LSD was exported to many other British-influenced countries as well, including Ireland and Australia.

I'm working from memory, but I believe Ireland converted to decimal around the same time as the U.K., and Australia introduced their version of dollars and cents about 1966, with $1 = 10s.

I'd just also add that prices weren't always written using pounds as soon as the 20/- barrier was exceeded. A price tag might well say 37/6 instead of the £1.17.6 that would be written in a ledger.

Compare this with writing 37 ft. 6 in. rather than 12 yd. 1 ft. 6 in.

<<
I'm working from memory, but I believe Ireland converted to decimal around the same time as the U.K., and Australia introduced their version of dollars and cents about 1966, with $1 = 10s.
>>

Ireland in fact changed over to a decimal coinage on the same day as did Britian - 15-Feb-1971 (10 years and 1 day after South Africa replaced her £1 with R2). At the time British coinage circulated in Southern Ireland alngside the Irish coinage. (In fact, in December 1976 I was in S. Ireland and had bought something in a market and expected a little over £5 in change. I mentioned to the stallholder that I was erturning to England the follwoing day and she looked through her banknotes to see whether or not she had an English £5 note for me).

Exactly, Paul, beyond around 20ft, I use yard... but if any inch like degree of accuracy is required, then I switch to ft and ins. It is all common snese- we dont need a rule book like the metric men. I mean, I measure many things bythe dozens of inches (eg. 37in by 78 etc)

There is no such thing as a 50 yard dash. There is a 50 m dash, but no 50 yard dash. It doesn't matter what you call such a non-existant thing in metric.

There is no reward or records kept on any non-metric event. It is foolish to even consider such a thing.

Euric: "There is no such thing as a 50 yard dash. There is a 50 m dash, but no 50 yard dash. It doesn't matter what you call such a non-existant thing in metric."

The fact that some particular organization doesn't recognize a 50-yd. dash as one of its events does not mean that it doesn't exist.

If you set up a race over a measured distance of 50 yards, then by definition it is a 50-yard dash.

^ Yes, the yard is an actual measure, and 50yds a sensible multiple for a race. However.... I do in fact think it makes more sense of have a 55yd dash or a 60yd dash

From Tony Bennett:
<<
But, Martin, you have forgotten that in the British system, two different words are often combined in stating a weight or a measurement - indeed, that is one of the many superior features of customary measurements.

Common examples would be:

(Height of person) "Five feet two inches", or

(Weight of person) "Thirteen stone seven pounds", or

(Weight of baby) "Six pounds four ounces".

Using language like this tends to make the figures more memorable, since fewer numbers are usually employed than in the metric system
>>

Height of person:
1 metre 73
Weight of person:
83 kg
Weight of baby
3.5 kg

Dont talk such rubbish Tony!

re:

"Height of person:
1 metre 73
Weight of person:
83 kg
Weight of baby
3.5 kg

Dont talk such rubbish Tony!"

REPLY:

(1) 1.73 is three figures; '5 foot 2' is two i.e. Imperial is easier

(2) Most people would say something like '12 stone, '13 stone' or '12 1/2 stone' in referring to their weight - again easier to use than much larger numbers ike 83, 95 etc.

(3) 3.5kg is accurate to the nearest 3.5 ounces only (i.e. nearest 100 grams), but still uses two figures to say so

CONCLUSION: Imperial is easier for the mind in the first and secondn cases, and simply 3.5 times more accurate in the third, whilst still using only two numbers

Toney Bennett wrote

<<
REPLY:

(1) 1.73 is three figures; '5 foot 2' is two i.e. Imperial is easier

(2) Most people would say something like '12 stone, '13 stone' or '12 1/2 stone' in referring to their weight - again easier to use than much larger numbers ike 83, 95 etc.

(3) 3.5kg is accurate to the nearest 3.5 ounces only (i.e. nearest 100 grams), but still uses two figures to say so

CONCLUSION: Imperial is easier for the mind in the first and secondn cases, and simply 3.5 times more accurate in the third, whilst still using only two numbers
>>

1. 1.73m is accurate to better than 1% (almost 0.5%) wereas the accuraccy of 5ft 2in is much less than 1% - just over 2% in fact. You cannot get an accuracy of better than 1% unless you use three figures - the inverse however does not hold - 4ft 11in uses three figures and, relatively speaking, is even less accurate than 5ft 2in.

2. 12 1/2 stone is accurate only to 4% (assuming that one is working to the nearest half stone), 83kg is accurate to almost 1%.

3. When babies are weighed at birth, it is usual to have an accuracy of at least 10g, so you should have written 3.50kg (which incidently was the birth weight of my son).

CONCLUSION - Tony Bennetts's conclusion was unsound.

re (Martin): "3. When babies are weighed at birth, it is usual to have an accuracy of at least 10g, so you should have written 3.50kg (which incidentally was the birth weight of my son)".

REPLY: A tad unfair of you, Martin, since you yourself posted a weight of 3.5kg, not 3.50kg.

But you've made my point for me.

As you correctly point out, baby's weights are usually quoted in the metric system using *three* figures e.g. 4.12 kgs.

Three figures are significantly more difficult to remember than two.

The elegance of customary weights and measures is that in the examples we've been discussing, people like to use just two figures.

A classic example is road height signs.

Customary indications are, e.g., '9' 6", 10' 6" etc. i.e. two figures.

The Department for Transport has wisely, under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (1994 and 2002), prescribed that only *one* decimal place shall be used (on the rare occasions that metric units are displayed), e.g. 2.1m - although rogue and illegal examples using two decimal places of metres can be found here and there.

It is not by accident that customary measures give us these convenient expressions like '6 foot 2', '9 stone', '8lb 7oz' etc. It is because they have a human, natural origin.

By contrast, the soulless metric system was devised in an ivory tower - scientifically rational, but inhuman

Tony: "By contrast, the soulless metric system was devised in an ivory tower - scientifically rational, but inhuman"

Tony, could you tell me why no one on the Continent has got a problem with this inhuman and soulless system ? Why does it work so well in the rest of Europe (and most of the world) ?

The imperial system doesn't have a soul and neither does the metric system. It's just about getting (and being) used to a certain kind of system. That's all.

You are used to imperial and that's why you like it. You know it, you are familiar with it, you think in imperial. I prefer metric because I think in metric and I like it for its natural simplicity. (Oh my God, did I just say "natural" ?)

Conrad,

O.K., I'm sure on the 'Imperial' side we'd all accept your observation about the significant role played by familiarity in deciding Imperial or metric preference.

But, honestly, can you not 'feel' the friendliness of 'inch', 'pint', pound' etc. as against 'kilogram' and 'kilometre'?

You'll find a similar difference between the use of Anglo-Saxon and Roman/French words. The Roman/French words in our language tend to be longer and somewhat more indirect than their Anglo-Saxon equivalents. The monosyllabic Anglo-Saxon just rings true for us English-speakers (whoops, nearly forgot SteveH there - just remembered the '-speakers' bit in time).

This makes words like 'millimetre' and 'centilitre' sound discordant

Ok Tony, I admit that you are right about that one. Saying 5 miles/inches sounds better than 5 kilometres/centimetres because the words "mile" and "inch" are shorter than their metric equivalents.

On the other hand, however, native speakers are very good at coining nicknames for all kinds of things that have "difficult" names.
E.g.
kilogramme --> kilo
millimetre --> mil
kilometre --> k (pronounced as "kay" and used all the time in Australia and NZ)
millilitre --> mil

Moreover, to me the word "litre" sounds as good as "pint" and "gramme" sounds even better than "ounce". (Never liked the word "ounce"; don't know why actually...)

Anyway, I'm confident that the problem will solve itself.

millimetre --> mil

I don't know about other pro-Imperial folk, but I find this nickname particularly irritating.

On the occasions I've had to work with builders while carrying out a wiring project I've sometimes had an exchange something like this:

"What height is your worktop going to be?"

"Nine hundred mills."

"Really? For midgets, is it?!"

Maybe we shuld be thankful that the Australians have taken on the task of coining informal names for metric units. When the Americans come up with words like "burgularize", I hate to think what they would do to metric units.

PS - TO any American readers - In Britain we would say "He was burgled", not "He was burglarized".

"What height is your worktop going to be?"

"Nine hundred mills."

"Really? For midgets, is it?!"

> I assume you're trying to point out that this work top could be interperated as being 0.9inches high rather than 900mm.

Well, unless you're a Yank, 0.001 of an inch is called a thou.

Also thous are used for precision engineering. Most builders I know are lucky to get anything within 10mm of the dims on the drawing.

And finally, the word "mil" is like the word "sheep". It doesn't have a plural.

I was just expressing it the way the average builder would say it.

Mil is perfectly acceptable in British English, and ytou will find it in the dictionary, although I concede that thou is the more widely known term over here.

By the way, most of the builders I've encountered seem to consider working to a tolerance of 10mm to be precision engineering!