Re: [OT] Is English just badly pronounced French?

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 18:51:48 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:

On 3/31/2024 10:56 AM, Rhino wrote: 

Sun, 31 Mar 2024 06:35:33 -0700 suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>: 

 

. . .  

 

While GB officially went metric, many people still use the Imperial
measurements, at least for linear measures, not so much for
weight. 

 

The Brits weigh themselves in "stones" not pounds or kilograms. (I
believe a stone is 14 pounds.) These stones are definitely not
metric but I'm not sure they can truly be called Imperial either
since they aren't used anywhere outside the UK, as far as I know. 

 

Yeah, I don't know where stone comes from. I was thinking smaller,
like pounds and ounces. 

 
These were literal stones of a uniform weight used in trade, and
depending on the trade good, varied from 6 pounds to 21 pounds. They
would have been used on a balance scale.
 

I did not know that there were several different standard stones used
for different trades. Did I remember correctly that the one used to
weigh people is 14 pounds?

Yes, they are part of the Imperial system.

I stand corrected.

Various acts of Parliament
starting in 1835 were intended to phase them out but that obviously
never happened.
 
As a matter of trivia, yes the British Imperial System and U.S.
Customary System use a unit of mass. It's called the slug. It's
derived from a hypthetical 1 pound force accelerating a mass by 1
ft/second squared.

I've never heard of anyone actually using the slug in this way. There
is, of course, the garden creature called the slug and the round, flat,
coin-sized parts punched out of the boxes where you mount electrical
switches and outlets are sometimes called slugs (at least around here)
but those are the only two uses as a noun that I can think of, except
perhaps a rough unit of liquid, as in "take a slug of this whiskey".

I suppose the metric equivalent of a slug is what scientists actually
use.


--
Rhino