 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007Stone
What us the correct plural of stone (14 lbs)? Do you (English people) ever say "stones"? vorotynt...@yahoo.com wrote: > What us the correct plural of stone (14 lbs)? Do you (English people) > ever say "stones"? Sorry, s/b "What is... " >What us the correct plural of stone (14 lbs)? Do you (English people) >ever say "stones"? The usual plural of "stone" (14 lbs) is "stone".  SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) > >What us the correct plural of stone (14 lbs)? Do you (English people) > >ever say "stones"? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The usual plural of "stone" (14 lbs) is "stone". Indeed. But the pounds are plural when not abbreviated. A weight which is not an exact number of stone is given thus "I weigh twelve stone ten pounds" (no "and".) Or more commonly "Twelve stone ten". I was taught to write 'lb' as the abbreviation for both pound and pounds (plural). Fourteen pounds = one stone Two stone = one quarter Four quarters = one hundredweight (112 lb) (100 lb USA) Twenty hundredweight = one ton (UK and USA) The plural of hundredweight is hundredweight. On 27 Dec 2006, wrote > What us the correct plural of stone (14 lbs)? Do you (English > people) ever say "stones"? To confirm what Peter said, one would invariably say "he weighs ten stone". SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 27 Dec 2006, wrote > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > To confirm what Peter said, one would invariably say "he weighs ten > stone". Traditionally and colloquially, weights and measures aren't pluralised: six foot two, eight stone seven, twelve pound fifty. These forms vary in formal acceptability. Adrian > > On 27 Dec 2006, wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > foot two, eight stone seven, twelve pound fifty. These forms vary in formal > acceptability. But, "he was busted with eight ounces of weed" - not eight ounce of weed? > > > On 27 Dec 2006, wrote > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But, "he was busted with eight ounces of weed" - not eight ounce of > weed? Yes, Adrian's statement is a little too all encompassing. Traditionally, small units _are_ pluralised (ounces, pence, inches, etc.) > > > > On 27 Dec 2006, wrote > > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Traditionally, small units _are_ pluralised (ounces, pence, inches, > etc.) Yet, I was a 10 pound baby. I believe with weights it is context driven. But to say ten pounds would not be wrong either. I feel it is more of a colloquial thing than any hard and fast rule. Maybe it's an abbreviation that has now become the defacto norm? >> > > > On 27 Dec 2006, wrote >> > > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >I believe with weights it is context driven. But to say ten pounds >would not be wrong either. "I was a ten pounds baby"? Something has to be wrong with that. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > "I was a ten pounds baby"? Something has to be wrong with that. That's what my mother said only it sounded a lot more shrill. > Yet, I was a 10 pound baby. "Ten pound" is an adjective. And I would hyphenate it. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email. > > On 27 Dec 2006, wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > foot two, eight stone seven, twelve pound fifty. These forms vary in formal > acceptability. True, as long as the measure refers to a single entity. But, if it refers to a group (I have sixteen stones of potatoes.), then the plural is correct. GFH > > > On 27 Dec 2006, wrote > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > refers to a group (I have sixteen stones of potatoes.), then the > plural is correct. Really. What kind of market would there be for stone potatoes, anyway? > What kind of market would there be for stone potatoes, anyway? I take it you've never eaten in a British restaurant. > > What kind of market would there be for stone potatoes, anyway? > > I take it you've never eaten in a British restaurant. You take it correctly. > > On 27 Dec 2006, wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > foot two, eight stone seven, twelve pound fifty. These forms vary in formal > acceptability. That is a bit too sweeping. Sixteen feet five and seven eights inches, which is perfectly acceptable, colloquial and normal, contains three plurals. Driving cross-country, we drive thousands of miles, not ever "thousands of mile". Not even "a hundred mile". And anything that weighs twelve pounds would be stated as "pounds". Nothing weighs "twelve pound", except that a "twelve-pound fish" would be normal enough (except in my generally fruitless fishing experience). Is fruitless appropriate when talking about fishing? > That is a bit too sweeping. Sixteen feet five and seven eights inches, > which is perfectly acceptable, colloquial and normal, contains three [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Nothing weighs "twelve pound", except that a "twelve-pound fish" would > be normal enough (except in my generally fruitless fishing experience). Adjectival compounds involving weights and measures are formed with a hyphen and the singular form of the measure, but an ordinary phrase containing a measurement would use the plural. Thus:- It's "a six-pound hammer", but "this hammer weighs six pounds". It''s "a five-mile run" but "I've just run five miles" Also the plural of stone and hundredweight are the same as the singular. I daresay that people who work in the vegetable trade say "sixty ton of potatoes"... >> On 27 Dec 2006, wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Adrian There are variations in common use. I quite often hear e.g. 'six feet two' and 'twelve pounds fifty'. SignatureFrancis Cameron > >> On 27 Dec 2006, wrote > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > There are variations in common use. I quite often hear e.g. 'six feet > two' and 'twelve pounds fifty'. I think that people assume that the unpluralised forms are incorrect and try to avoid them. I'd put it down** as a kind of hypercorrection, if we're talking, for example, about usage among the people I grew up with in Cheshire/Staffordshire. (FAIK there may be some parts of the country where the unpluralised forms have never been used in this way.) ** http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/put%20down sense 29e, not 29f Adrian >>>> On 27 Dec 2006, wrote >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > some parts of the country where the unpluralised forms have never > been used in this way.) Five foot two, Eyes of Blue But Oh! What those five feet can do SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >What us the correct plural of stone (14 lbs)? Do you (English people) >ever say "stones"? We very rarely use stone in its sense of a weight of 14 lbs - except in reference to human body weights. Then it usual to hear people say e.g. "Ten stone". I do not recall hearing an adult say 'ten stones' in this context. Written usage, so far as I am aware, is similar. 'Stones' appears to have fallen out of use (except in reference to a certain long-lived pop group). SignatureFrancis Cameron > We very rarely use stone in its sense of a weight of 14 lbs - except in > reference to human body weights. Then it usual to hear people say e.g. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have fallen out of use (except in reference to a certain long-lived pop > group). I am 54 and I might well think of and talk about a "a four-stone sack of potatoes" eg when searching for a metaphor (eg one less tired than a ton of bricks) but I am thoroughly aware that when running my putative chip shop I will have to order and deal with sacks marked in kilogrammes. Likewise the cod, wet fish being a commodity formerly commercially weighed in stones and pounds (plurals deliberate). Francis Cameron ha escrito: > >What us the correct plural of stone (14 lbs)? Do you (English people) > >ever say "stones"? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -- > Francis Cameron Only human body weights? When flipping through a British magazine about dogs, I encountered a mention of the weight of a large dog given in stone. Large, well -- bigger than a corgi, anyway; AIR, it was 4 stone and a few pounds. Cece |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.