 |
 | 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 / November 2008am - pm again
Hi, Sorry to bother y'all again ... Once more, translating a US english source, I stumble over the hour datum; I assume the problem/answer is the same as last time, with a 12 hour lag; I just need to confirm. The time given for a daytime occurrence is - "12.43 p.m.". Strictly speaking, this is the same as 27 minutes past noon, right? Tia! MVH, T > Hi, .... > The time given for a daytime occurrence is - "12.43 p.m.". > Strictly speaking, this is the same as 27 minutes past noon, right? The pitfalls of the clipboard.... scire licet "43 minutes past noon", please. MVH, T "Tron" <tronfuru@frizurf.no> skrev ... > The time given for a daytime occurrence is - "12.43 p.m.". > Strictly speaking, this is the same as 43 minutes past noon, right? Not really. But 43 minutes past noon is the same as 12.43 pm. (see thedifference?)  SignatureAndrew http://www.wordskit.com/ http://www.flayme.com/ "If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein Hi, thx. > "Tron" <tronfuru@frizurf.no> skrev ... >> The time given for a daytime occurrence is - "12.43 p.m.". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > (see thedifference?) ... not really .... is it the "strictly"...? Jobwise, it's OK as long as I can render it "12.43" in the 24 hour system. Which I have. MVH, T > "Andrew Heenan" <fire@will.com> skrev i melding >>> The time given for a daytime occurrence is - "12.43 p.m.". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> (see thedifference?) > ... not really .... is it the "strictly"...? Ok. The time is 12.43 pm and / or 12.43 hours (using the 24hr clock). You could say 43 mins past noon, and you'd not be 'wrong'. But noon is noon; once you get a minute before or after, noon doesn't really come into it. The '12' is the appropriate reference point. SignatureAndrew http://www.wordskit.com/ http://www.flayme.com/ "If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein Hi, >> "Andrew Heenan" <fire@will.com> skrev i melding >>>> The time given for a daytime occurrence is - "12.43 p.m.". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > But noon is noon; once you get a minute before or after, noon doesn't > really come into it. The '12' is the appropriate reference point. I'm probably right dense ... and the job is delivered, so further post-grad edu on my behalf is par coulance... ... but this must be aproblem of the nomenclature vs. the real (not to say sidereal)...? "Noon is noon" I take to be a statement of astronomical fact which implies that ..... it is extensionless? Cannot, as such, be "counted"? It works as a reference point, but is not identical to "12.00" in the 24 hour system, either because "12.00" has an in-system 59-of-60-parts-of-a second extension (12:00:00 - 12:00:01), or because noon is "the sun being at its apex in the sky" which is not horological, but astrological...? I don't know the precise technical meaning of "...doesn't really come into it" in this context, I think. MVH, T >Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >I don't know the precise technical meaning of "...doesn't really come into >it" in this context, I think. I'll leave Andrew Heenan to further explain his objection. To me, "43 minutes past noon" correctly identifies the time but is not a conventional way of expressing it. Some people would understand its meaning, but others might be temporarily perplexed. This is an area where it is best to stick to the conventions. The time "43 minutes past noon" is conventionally expressed as "12:43 p.m.". A logical analysis of "12:43 p.m." could lead to a completely different time of day. The dictionary definition of "p.m." (post meridiem) is "after noon". "12:43 p.m." could be expanded, literally, to "12 hours and 43 minutes after noon" which is 43 minutes past midnight, which is not what "12:43 p.m." means according to the normal convention. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) Hi, .... > I'll leave Andrew Heenan to further explain his objection. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This is an area where it is best to stick to the conventions. Yes, well, the target language is not english. I was just concerned to get the facts right first, which is also rather crucial to finding the right expression. > The time "43 minutes past noon" is conventionally expressed as "12:43 > p.m.". A [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > means > according to the normal convention. Yes, my previous am/pm query concerned the exprsssion "12.27 a.m.", which turned out to be 27 minutes past midnight. T >The time "43 minutes past noon" is conventionally expressed as "12:43 p.m.". A >logical analysis of "12:43 p.m." could lead to a completely different time of >day. The dictionary definition of "p.m." (post meridiem) is "after noon". >"12:43 p.m." could be expanded, literally, to "12 hours and 43 minutes after >noon" which is 43 minutes past midnight, which is not what "12:43 p.m." means >according to the normal convention. Wouldn't that depend on the actual interpretation of "post meridiem"? It could either mean H hours and M minutes since the sun reached the apex, or it could mean the block of time that comes after the sun has reached the apex. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > Wouldn't that depend on the actual interpretation of "post > meridiem"? It could either mean H hours and M minutes since the > sun reached the apex, or it could mean the block of time that > comes after the sun has reached the apex. Nope; it depends on your time zone. The days of individual time as per the observed behaviour of the sun have long gone! SignatureAndrew http://www.wordskit.com/ http://www.flayme.com/ "If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein >> Wouldn't that depend on the actual interpretation of "post >> meridiem"? It could either mean H hours and M minutes since the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The days of individual time as per the observed behaviour of the sun have >long gone! I'm going back to fundamentals... Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >"12:43 p.m." could be expanded, literally, to "12 hours and 43 minutes after >noon" And that literal expansion would be wrong. Because the second isn't the same as the first. Because 12:43 p.m. is a standard notation with a standard meaning, and it does't mean 12 and 43 past noon. It means 43 minutes past noon. >which is 43 minutes past midnight, which is not what "12:43 p.m." means >according to the normal convention. But that was never what Tron suggested. He said that 12:43PM was the same as 43 mnutes past noon. And he's right. He didn't say 12 hours and 43 minutes past. But Tron, I think you misused "strictly speaking". When we're talking about sameness, it either is the same or it's not. There's no need to be strict. There's no leeway within which to be strict. There is no non-strict position that is different. And there is no way that, loosely speaking, 12:43PM would not be the same as 43 minutes past noon. There is loosely or strictly. And, despite this thread, it's no secret that 12:43PM is 43 minutes past noon. The phrase strictly speaking serves no purpose and if anything is confusing. >>>Hi, >>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >same as 43 mnutes past noon. And he's right. He didn't say 12 hours >and 43 minutes past. I was simply pointing out that using the dictionary definition (OED) of PM (post meridiem) = "past noon", 12:43PM would arithmetically or logically mean "12 hours 43 minutes past noon". However, it is a mistake to interpret PM as "past noon". In labelling times PM means "in the time between noon and midnight". In the afternoon the hours are conventionally numbered 1 to 11 which are the same as the time elapsed since noon, but the zeroth elapsed hour is conventionally numbered 12. The 12 is a continuation into the afternoon of the numbering of the hours of the morning. The same oddity applies when PM becomes AM at midnight. The time label AM means "in the time between midnight and noon". >But Tron, I think you misused "strictly speaking". When we're >talking about sameness, it either is the same or it's not. There's no [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >The phrase strictly speaking serves no purpose and if anything is >confusing. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) Hi, ..... But Tron, I think you misused "strictly speaking". .... The phrase strictly speaking serves no purpose and if anything is > confusing. Thx, I can see that. I'll ne'er speak strictly again. Thx to everyone who chipped in! T >But Tron, I think you misused "strictly speaking". When we're >talking about sameness, it either is the same or it's not. There's no >need to be strict. There's no leeway within which to be strict. >There is no non-strict position that is different. And there is no way >that, loosely speaking, 12:43PM would not be the same as 43 minutes >past noon. There is loosely or strictly. I meant "There is no loosely or strictly". But you probaly knew that, Tron, given your reply. <snip> > ... but this must be aproblem of the nomenclature vs. the real (not to say > sidereal)...? The sidereal day is only about 23h56m long, so most clocks ignore it. > "Noon is noon" I take to be a statement of astronomical fact which > implies that ..... it is extensionless? Cannot, as such, be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > because noon is "the sun being at its apex in the sky" which is not > horological, but astrological...? Astronomical, please: astrology is little concerned with observable phenomena. The main problem with using the actual position of the Sun for reference is that the length of a day (the interval between consecutive noons) varies over the course of each year, while we prefer a system of timekeeping that progresses uniformly. It's certainly easier to build clocks that way! Moreover, according to standard time even the mean (uniform) local noon comes earlier or later than 12h00 at most places, the discrepancy being proportional to the difference in longitude between that location and the meridian belonging to its time-zone. Of course none of this is relevant to most people -- but it's essential to take into account when calibrating a sundial, for example. SignatureOdysseus >> Hi, >.... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The pitfalls of the clipboard.... scire licet "43 minutes past noon", >please. I think it's 27. It's one of those quirky things where you make a mistake but get the right answer anyhow. >MVH, > >T > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The time given for a daytime occurrence is - "12.43 p.m.". > Strictly speaking, this is the same as 27 minutes past noon, right? Unless you have one of those very rare clocks with 100 divisions per hour, it is strictly speaking 43 minutes past noon. The choice of '.' vs ':' as a separator of hours and minutes is analogous to the same choice for the separator of chapter and verse in citing the Bible. The _New American Bible_ and the _Revised English Bible_ notes (and Oxford increasingly in other material) use '.' instead of te traditional ':'. I suppose you will claim that "strictly" such references are to decimal divisions of chapters. >> Hi, >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Unless you have one of those very rare clocks with 100 divisions per hour, > it is strictly speaking 43 minutes past noon. Thank you. I misquoted wrt. the 27 minutes, it should be 43 minutes there, too. The choice of '.' > vs ':' as a separator of hours and minutes is analogous to the same choice > for the separator of chapter and verse in citing the Bible. The _New > American Bible_ and the _Revised English Bible_ notes (and Oxford > increasingly in other material) use '.' instead of te traditional ':'. I > suppose you will claim that "strictly" such references are to decimal > divisions of chapters. I make no claims here, except to my errors. Thx again. MVH, T |
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.