LL-L "Measure words" 2002.12.15 (03) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 15.DEC.2002 (03) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.lowlands-l.net>  Email: <admin at lowlands-l.net>
 Rules & Guidelines: <http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
 To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
 text from the same account to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or
 sign off at <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic
               V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Ed Alexander <edsells at cogeco.ca>
Subject: LL-L "Folklore" 2002.12.15 (01) [D/E/German]

At 12:31 AM 12/16/02 -0800, Ross May wrote:
>        First, no people are going to, by government edict, change their
>system of measurement.  I am sure that the Norman Dukes would have
preferred
>that the commoners of Britain speak Norman French, and several times took
>measures that tried to force this.

Actually, the result was a creole, unintelligible to speakers of either
source language within a few generations.

>  But the citizenry will speak the
>language that they choose to, just as the people of America have chosen to
>use the SAE measurements instead of the metric.

If it was up to the people of Canada, there never would have been a change
here, either.  It's another case of the government choosing the minority
position for the good of the majority.  Most people here now are either in
favour of the "new" system, or are at least accepting of it.  It's also
another case of the benefits of the parliamentary system of government,
which gives the governing party far more power than in the American system,
so things like the metric system and universal single payer health care
systems can be mandated despite opposition from various interest groups
which benefit from the status quo.

>From: Joe Stromberg
>Subject: LL-L "Measure words" 2002.12.14 (02) [E]
>
>So far no one has given us anything like a good reason for American
adoption
>of the metric system. With one of the largest internal markets in the
world,
>we don't need it. Firms involved in foreign trade internalize whatever
costs
>are involved in conversion, and I don't see why they should externalize
>their costs onto the rest of us. A lot of foreign trade seems to take place
>anyway.

Actually, we're happy you don't adopt it, because it gives the rest of us a
competitive edge in world markets.  Ever check your trade deficit figures
recently?

>If Canadians put up signs in both systems, they are 1) being polite (this
is
>quite possible), 2) making a rational business decision, given that they
>have American customers, or 3) expressing suppressed resentment at having
been
>forced to adopt a system of measurement whose only real recommendation, for
>everyday use, lies in its relationship to the French Revolution, but there
>is no need to discuss that disaster here.

One very, very rarely sees both systems.  Canada decided to leave most
building materials in Imperial measure, since we ship a lot of plywood and
other building materials to the States and less overseas.  Plus there's the
issue of retrofit, since all existing buildings were put up before
metric.  However, bricks and blocks and carpet and a few other things are
all metric now.

>There is quite enough levelling and legislated uniformity in the world as
it
>is. Why on earth should we want any more? If a few people want the metric
>system, where do they get the right to impose it on those who don't?

This is like the seatbelt argument.  Unfortunately those who think that no
one should be forced to wear a seatbelt are never in favour of those who
don't wear them paying solely for all the extra medical and social costs
caused by those who don't.  As long as I have to bear part of the cost of
people not wearing seatbelts, or smoking, for example, I think I should
have a certain right to control this behavior.

>American adoption of the metric system is perhaps the least imperative
>reform of which I can think. One might as well demand that everyone in the
>world
>speak the same language or profess the same religion.

Really?  You can't be serious.

Ed Alexander, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

==================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
  <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================