 |
 | 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 2007cm by cm, row by row...
I need to write about a square that is 46 cm long on each side. This is for a sewing pattern, so clarity is more important than beauty. I can't decide which is best: 46 x 46 cm 46 cm x 46 cm (something I haven't thought of yet) Comments?  SignatureSML The Sara Lorimer entity posted thusly: >I need to write about a square that is 46 cm long on each side. This is >for a sewing pattern, so clarity is more important than beauty. I can't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Comments? What is your intended audience's level of English understanding? Both of your examples sound fine to me, and have identical meaning. "a square, 46 cm on a side" would also be understood by many here on aue, but it might not be the best choice for the target audience. > The Sara Lorimer entity posted thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What is your intended audience's level of English understanding? Fluent. > Both of your examples sound fine to me, and have identical meaning. I'm wondering which is easier on the eye. If it were inches, I'd write it like this: 18" x 18" ...but repeating the "cm" looks odd to me. SignatureSML >I need to write about a square that is 46 cm long on each side. This is >for a sewing pattern, so clarity is more important than beauty. I can't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Comments? Unless you are being charged by the keystroke, I'd suggest 46 cm x 46 cm. 46 x 46 cm is correct, but for that one person who asks "46 what for the first dimension?" I'd add the keystrokes. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > Unless you are being charged by the keystroke, I'd suggest 46 cm x 46 > cm. I'm paid by the hour, and all those cm's do add up... > 46 x 46 cm is correct, but for that one person who asks "46 what > for the first dimension?" I'd add the keystrokes. I agree, but I just found it in the Chicago Manual of Style (I swear the page wasn't there before) and it turns out that 46 x 46 cm is How It Is Done. Chicago says, I obey. SignatureSML Sara Lorimer ha escrito: > > Unless you are being charged by the keystroke, I'd suggest 46 cm x 46 > > cm. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -- > SML Only if the editor or publisher involved insists that you use that thing! "46 cm x 46 cm" is much better. BTW, Systeme Internationale d'Unites (International System of Units) says use that space: http://www.sizes.com/units/si_writtenusage.htm#spaces Cece >>I need to write about a square that is 46 cm long on each side. This is >>for a sewing pattern, so clarity is more important than beauty. I can't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > cm. 46 x 46 cm is correct, but for that one person who asks "46 what > for the first dimension?" I'd add the keystrokes. I'll second that. There's an awkward sod in every group (except for AUE, of course) and you will be spared comments such as "I was sure we were knitting ties" or "But we were discussing the Bayeux Tapestry [1] during the coffee break last time; what do I do with the other 45 1/2 metres?" [1] Is actually 70 m x 50 cm. SignatureLes >I need to write about a square that is 46 cm long on each side. This is > for a sewing pattern, so clarity is more important than beauty. I can't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 46 cm x 46 cm > (something I haven't thought of yet) In scientific publications (in the UK at least) it is common to omit the space between the numeral and the unit. I know yours isn't a scientific document -- well, not all that -- but you might like the look of 46cm x 46cm Philip Eden > >I need to write about a square that is 46 cm long on each side. This is > > for a sewing pattern, so clarity is more important than beauty. I can't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > 46cm x 46cm /The TeXbook/ (the book documenting the wonderful math-processing program TeX) recommends thin spaces between numbers and units, in the unlikely event that you have that option. SignatureJerry Friedman Sara Lorimer: > > 46 x 46 cm > > 46 cm x 46 cm Take your pick. I'd use the first. Philip Eden: > In scientific publications (in the UK at least) it is common to > omit the space between the numeral and the unit... In Leftpondia that is an error, violating both common practice and (since we're talking about centimeters) the standards for writing metric measures. According to Wikipedia it also violates the international standard ISO 31-0, but I have not read the actual standard to confirm this. SignatureMark Brader | A standard is established on sure bases, not capriciously Toronto | but with the surety of something intentional and of a logic msb@vex.net | controlled by analysis and experiment. ... A standard is | necessary for order in human effort. -- Le Corbusier In alt.usage.english, Mark Brader wrote: >Sara Lorimer: >> > 46 x 46 cm [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >international standard ISO 31-0, but I have not read the actual >standard to confirm this. I accept what you say but omission of the space is very common, and, to my eyes at least, looks much better. Perhaps it's because the symbols for feet and inches were so compact, so '5 cm' seems to take up an unreasonable amount of space compared with '5"'. Omitting the space improves the situation a little. Spell-checkers don't like it, though. Also, in the example quoted, "46cm square[d]" is better than "46 cm square[d]" at distinguishing itself from "46 cm²" (superscript 2). SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >In alt.usage.english, Mark Brader wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >unreasonable amount of space compared with '5"'. Omitting the space >improves the situation a little. Spell-checkers don't like it, though. The Economist style guide prefers to omit the space. See the third page of the excerpts at: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/186197535X/ref=sib_dp_bod_ex/026-602674 0-6863665?ie=UTF8&p=S00H#reader-page http://tinyurl.com/yb4ntg SignaturePaul In bocca al Lupo! > I need to write about a square that is 46 cm long on each side. This is > for a sewing pattern, so clarity is more important than beauty. I can't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Comments? "46cm squares". >> I need to write about a square that is 46 cm long on each side. This is >> for a sewing pattern, so clarity is more important than beauty. I can't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > "46cm squares". "46cms square." >>> I need to write about a square that is 46 cm long on each side. This is >>> for a sewing pattern, so clarity is more important than beauty. I can't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > "46cms square." "46cm square". (no s after the unit) > >>> I need to write about a square that is 46 cm long on each side. This is > >>> for a sewing pattern, so clarity is more important than beauty. I can't [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > "46cm square". (no s after the unit) Right. If you were describing them in bulk, "46cm squares". Sara Lorimer (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message <1hrivt0.b6bzr61b5g6z4N%que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com>: > I need to write about a square that is 46 cm long on each side. This is > for a sewing pattern, so clarity is more important than beauty. I can't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 46 cm x 46 cm > (something I haven't thought of yet) 18.1" x 18.1" SignatureTerms and conditions apply. Batteries not included. Subject to status. Contains moderate language. Always read the label. Keep out of children. Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > I need to write about a square that is 46 cm long on each side. This is > for a sewing pattern, so clarity is more important than beauty. I can't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Comments? A square with a diagonal dimension of 65 cm. Stupot |
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.