Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

The "Pound Sign" vs. the "Number Sign"

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Berkeley Brett - 11 May 2009 10:12 GMT
Hello friends:

I've always found it a little odd that the key on the telephone which
looks like this -- # -- is called the "pound key," and the symbol on
it is called "the pound sign".

It certainly isn't the sign for the British Pound Sterling.  That
symbol looks like a cursive capital "L" with a small vertical bar
through it.

So why do we call what I have always used as a "number sign" (as in
"#8") a "pound sign"??

Well, if Wikipedia is to be believed, the origin of this usage was
partially a concession to the world of computing:

=== begin quoted text ===

Prior to the introduction of the IBM PC there was no unique accepted
standard for entering, displaying, printing, or storing the £ sign in
the UK computer industry. On personal computers prior to the PC the
"#" key was often used; sometimes it was displayed on screen as "#",
but many printers could be set up to print "£" where "#" was sent to
the printer by an application program. Keying in, storing, displaying,
and printing the sign often required special setup. The "#" sign is
referred to as the "hash symbol" in the UK, but it is sometimes called
"pound sign" in non-sterling countries....

....The PC UK keyboard layout has the "£" symbol on the 3 number key,
where an American keyboard has the number sign ("#").

=== end quoted text ===

[I hope the British Pound sign displayed correctly in the quote above
-- this will depend on your browser settings.  You should see three
capital-L-style pound signs at different places in the quote above.
If not, there's probably some weird generic character where they
should be.]

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sign

But Wikipedia also claims that the sign is sometimes used in the U.S.
to indicate the weight of a pound:

=== begin quoted text ===

The mainstream use in the U.S. is this: when it precedes a number, it
is read as "number", as in "a #2 pencil" (spoken as "a number two
pencil"); when it follows a number, it is read as "pounds", as in "5#
of sugar" (spoken as "five pounds of sugar"). The first form is more
widely used by the general population while the second form is more
specifically used in the food service and grocery/produce industries,
or other fields where units of pounds (as weight) need to be hand-
written frequently or repetitively....

=== end quoted text ===

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_sign

I must say, before reading the article above, I have never seen the
"#" sign used to indicate weight.  Seems an odd choice for something
that must be "hand-written frequently or repetitively," since the
symbol takes four distinct strokes to make.  Wouldn't some kind of
single-stroke squiggle be more efficient (like, say, an upside-down
cursive lower case "L")?

So, which name should we use?  "Pound sign"?  "Number sign"?  "Hash
sign"? or "That little tic-tac-toe thingy"?

I suppose "pound sign" is the least misunderstood -- so I think I'll
stick with that name.

If anyone else has any insights, recommendations, corrections, or
other musings on this, they are most welcome....

--
Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA)
http://www.100bestwebsites.org/
"The 100 finest sites on the Web, all in one place!"
Widely-watched non-profit ranking of top Internet sites
Glenn Knickerbocker - 11 May 2009 12:14 GMT
>I must say, before reading the article above, I have never seen the
>"#" sign used to indicate weight.

25 years ago, I didn't think I had, either.  Then I noticed it on some
old boxes that I'd seen used to hold Sunday School supplies for at least
15 years before that.

¬R   http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/zangelding.html   "When there's
a nuclear attack, that's when buckets are used."  --Tim Brown, IUSD
Hatunen - 11 May 2009 17:26 GMT
>>I must say, before reading the article above, I have never seen the
>>"#" sign used to indicate weight.
>
>25 years ago, I didn't think I had, either.  Then I noticed it on some
>old boxes that I'd seen used to hold Sunday School supplies for at least
>15 years before that.

My first real job was as a junior engineer for a General Motors
division in 1955 and the use of the octothorpe to mean pounds
weight was already common. I suspect, though, that it was largely
confined to business and industrial usage.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

R H Draney - 11 May 2009 22:13 GMT
Hatunen filted:

>>>I must say, before reading the article above, I have never seen the
>>>"#" sign used to indicate weight.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>weight was already common. I suspect, though, that it was largely
>confined to business and industrial usage.

Someone should open a boxcar diner and list a breakfast item on the menu:

 #6: 1/4# of corned beef # with # cheddar

....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Glenn Knickerbocker - 11 May 2009 23:11 GMT
> division in 1955 and the use of the octothorpe to mean pounds
> weight was already common.

I think what's at issue is not "already" but "still."  It's an old use
that was already fading from common knowledge as the symbol was finding
its way onto Touch-Tone phones.

¬R
Steve Hayes - 12 May 2009 03:59 GMT
>> division in 1955 and the use of the octothorpe to mean pounds
>> weight was already common.
>
>I think what's at issue is not "already" but "still."  It's an old use
>that was already fading from common knowledge as the symbol was finding
>its way onto Touch-Tone phones.

The first time I heard it was when I had just arrived in New York and was
phoning to find the time of a train to Boston.

I was instructed by an automated voice to press the pound key, and couldn't
see one anywhere on the phone.

Eventually I travelled to the station to get the information.

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Hatunen - 12 May 2009 18:01 GMT
>> division in 1955 and the use of the octothorpe to mean pounds
>> weight was already common.
>
>I think what's at issue is not "already" but "still."  It's an old use
>that was already fading from common knowledge as the symbol was finding
>its way onto Touch-Tone phones.

I had never heard it before I entered the workaday world and I
suspect that it remains in business and industrial usage. It's
far handier than writing out "lbs".

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Mike Lyle - 12 May 2009 19:47 GMT
>>> division in 1955 and the use of the octothorpe to mean pounds
>>> weight was already common.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> suspect that it remains in business and industrial usage. It's
> far handier than writing out "lbs".

Actually (and I think somebody has said this already) cursive  "lb" is a
lot easier to write than the relatively elaborate series of
direction-changes and pen-liftings demanded by "#". British-type
practice, like the SI, doesn't add a plural "s" to abbreviations for
units of measurement.

Signature

Mike.

CDB - 12 May 2009 20:13 GMT
[tic-tac-toe]

>> I had never heard it before I entered the workaday world and I
>> suspect that it remains in business and industrial usage. It's
>> far handier than writing out "lbs".

> Actually (and I think somebody has said this already) cursive  "lb"
> is a lot easier to write than the relatively elaborate series of
> direction-changes and pen-liftings demanded by "#". British-type
> practice, like the SI, doesn't add a plural "s" to abbreviations for
> units of measurement.

Maybe the clue is in the word "cursive".  The four straight lines
would have been easier to scratch onto a crate, and maybe easier for
any kind of writing that didn't let you leave your stylus on the
surface.  In the extreme case, //// #, four pounds.  Depends how old
the sign is, I suppose.
Hatunen - 12 May 2009 20:55 GMT
>>>> division in 1955 and the use of the octothorpe to mean pounds
>>>> weight was already common.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>lot easier to write than the relatively elaborate series of
>direction-changes and pen-liftings demanded by "#".

That's one opinion, but it isn't mine. I mostly see it used in
field mark-ups, sometimes with a permanent marker, and
slash-slash-slash-slash is etter than using a penmanship grip and
writing "lb" or "lbs".

>British-type
>practice, like the SI, doesn't add a plural "s" to abbreviations for
>units of measurement.

I live in the USA. And niceties of the SI are, um, foreign to 5h3
guys on the loading dock. Of course, the ocotohorpe is never made
plural, anyway.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Berkeley Brett - 12 May 2009 00:31 GMT
> My first real job was as a junior engineer for a General Motors
> division in 1955 and the use of the octothorpe to mean pounds
> weight was already common.

Thanks, Hatunen, for this contribution.

Wow!  "Octothorpe" was a new one to me!

I see that Wikipedia redirects an "octothorpe" search to the "number
sign" article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octothorpe

I guess I hadn't read the article carefully enough to notice that this
is one of the alternate names for the "#" sign.

Thanks....

--
Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA)
http://www.100bestwebsites.org/
"The 100 finest sites on the Web, all in one place!"
Widely-watched non-profit ranking of top Internet sites
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 11 May 2009 12:52 GMT
>So, which name should we use?  "Pound sign"?  "Number sign"?  "Hash
>sign"? or "That little tic-tac-toe thingy"?
>
>I suppose "pound sign" is the least misunderstood -- so I think I'll
>stick with that name.

In Britain and Ireland "pound sign" would be the *most* misunderstood,
although perhaps decreasingly in the Republic of Ireland since they
stopped using the Irish Pound as currency.

"Hash (sign/symbol)" is usual in BrE.

"Hash" seems to have been "hatch" originally. This refers to "hatching"
and "cross-hatching".

   hatch, v

   1. trans. To cut, engrave, or draw a series of lines, generally
   parallel, on (a metal, wood, or paper surface); chiefly used for
   shading in engraving or drawing.

   cross-hatch. v

   To engrave or hatch a surface with parallel lines in two series
   crossing each other; esp. to shade an engraving or drawing by this
   method.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Mike Mooney - 11 May 2009 14:45 GMT
On 11 May, 12:52, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:
> On Mon, 11 May 2009 02:12:30 -0700 (PDT), Berkeley Brett
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> "Hash (sign/symbol)" is usual in BrE.

Exactomundo. It's a hash mark. Its use to mean "number" is widely
understood - I used to consider it American usage, but is now
increasingly common over here, although it has not yet supplanted
"no.".

I have never seen # used for pounds (weight) in Rightpondia. That
would always be "lb".

Mike M
Cece - 11 May 2009 16:47 GMT
> On 11 May, 12:52, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Come to think of it, I haven't seen # used for weight for a long time,
only lb.  I'll have to look at the signs in the grocery produce
department next time I go.  But I do understand "pound sign" to mean
#, which can also be called "number sign."  Of course, if the accent
saying "pound sign" is not from around here, I'll double-check to see
which sign the speaker means!

I am getting used to the usual use of @.  Nowadays, people think it
means "at," just "at."  It used to mean "at . . . each."  As in
"Apples @ 5c" -- "Apples priced _at_ five cents _each_."

Cece in Texas
Evan Kirshenbaum - 11 May 2009 18:15 GMT
> I am getting used to the usual use of @.  Nowadays, people think it
> means "at," just "at."  It used to mean "at . . . each."  As in
> "Apples @ 5c" -- "Apples priced _at_ five cents _each_."

Was it ever that narrow?  It seems unremarkable to me to see

   Apples, 10lb @ $1.20/lb

or even

   caviar, 3/4 lb @ $2/oz

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |The purpose of writing is to inflate
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning,
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |and inhibit clarity.  With a little
                                      |practice, writing can be an
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |intimidating and impenetrable fog!
   (650)857-7572                      |                   Calvin

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

James Hogg - 11 May 2009 18:23 GMT
>> I am getting used to the usual use of @.  Nowadays, people think it
>> means "at," just "at."  It used to mean "at . . . each."  As in
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>    caviar, 3/4 lb @ $2/oz

I agree with Evan here. I never understood @ as incorporating
"each". The each was written after the price, abbreviated as
"ea":

"Apples @ 3d ea"

Signature

James

Evan Kirshenbaum - 11 May 2009 18:36 GMT
>>> I am getting used to the usual use of @.  Nowadays, people think it
>>> means "at," just "at."  It used to mean "at . . . each."  As in
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> "Apples @ 3d ea"

That being said, Merriam-Webster's _New Collegiate Dictionary_ (the
8th in the series, published in 1981), gives

   @  at; each <4 apples @ 5¢ = 20¢>

And a 1918 _Business Arithmetic for Secondary Schools_ glosses it as
"at, each, to".  So "each" may have been incorporated, at least in
some places or contexts.  I don't understand the "to".

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |"Algebra? But that's far too
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |difficult for seven-year-olds!"
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |
                                      |"Yes, but I didn't tell them that
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |and so far they haven't found out,"
   (650)857-7572                      |said Susan.

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Ildhund - 11 May 2009 23:34 GMT
James Hogg wrote...
> The each was written after the price, abbreviated as
> "ea":
>
> "Apples @ 3d ea"

... with a little circle drawn round the 'ea' just like the one
round the @.
Signature

Noel

Berkeley Brett - 11 May 2009 19:26 GMT
> I have never seen # used for pounds (weight) in Rightpondia. That
> would always be "lb".
>
> Mike M

Actually, "lb" would be easier to write than "#" -- two loops and a
line vs. four distinct lines.

If the goal is to write quickly, "lb" is probably the better choice.

--
Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA)
http://www.100bestwebsites.org/
"The 100 finest sites on the Web, all in one place!"
Widely-watched non-profit ranking of top Internet sites
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 11 May 2009 19:34 GMT
>On 11 May, 12:52, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
>wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>increasingly common over here, although it has not yet supplanted
>"no.".

A few minutes ago I went to get a frozen ready-meal from my freezer. A
hidden force attracted my hand to a particular packet. So tonight I'll
be eating corned beef hash.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Tony P - 11 May 2009 22:10 GMT
>On 11 May, 12:52, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
>wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
>Mike M

If I may be permitted a Southern Hemisphere input -- the # is a hash and a hash
only, and always has been, or at least since the phones stopped having rotary
dials. The only  time I have heard of the "pound" usage is in this forum. In NZ,
the only use for the symbol is on a phone keypad. (The automated voice will say,
"Please enter the extension number and press hash.") There is no confusion with
pound weight or currency, because we have neither pound weight nor pound
currency.

I think this would probably apply in a large part of the world.

Tony P
Hatunen - 11 May 2009 22:42 GMT
>If I may be permitted a Southern Hemisphere input -- the # is a hash and a hash
>only, and always has been, or at least since the phones stopped having rotary
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>I think this would probably apply in a large part of the world.

I don't know about the Canadians, but here in the USA the
automated systems tell us "Please enter the extension number and
press the pound sign." There is no confusion with
pound weight or currency, because we are dialing a phone and not
weighing something or trying ot obtain UK currency.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

CDB - 12 May 2009 02:16 GMT
>> [all NZ says "hash" (mark?)]

>> I think this would probably apply in a large part of the world.

> I don't know about the Canadians, but here in the USA the
> automated systems tell us "Please enter the extension number and
> press the pound sign." [...]

Same in Canada.  I suppose if they said "number sign", people would
start wondering which one.
Robert Bannister - 12 May 2009 02:33 GMT
>> So, which name should we use?  "Pound sign"?  "Number sign"?  "Hash
>> sign"? or "That little tic-tac-toe thingy"?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> "Hash (sign/symbol)" is usual in BrE.

Agreed since they started appearing on phones. Before that, I would have
called them "number signs".

Signature

Rob Bannister

Nick - 12 May 2009 07:58 GMT
>>> So, which name should we use?  "Pound sign"?  "Number sign"?  "Hash
>>> sign"? or "That little tic-tac-toe thingy"?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Agreed since they started appearing on phones. Before that, I would
> have called them "number signs".

I first came across the symbol, and learned it as "hash" on computer
keyboards in the very late 70s and early 80s.  I don't think the US
number usage had impinged on my consciousness.

My bank's telephone banking system used to (they've changed the system
to use delays to terminate strings rather than an explicit delimiter)
the term "square" for it.  "Enter your customer number ... followed by square".
Signature

Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
          development version: http://canalplan.eu

Nick Spalding - 12 May 2009 12:12 GMT
Nick wrote, in <87fxfaq02v.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk>
on Tue, 12 May 2009 07:58:32 +0100:

> >>> So, which name should we use?  "Pound sign"?  "Number sign"?  "Hash
> >>> sign"? or "That little tic-tac-toe thingy"?
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> to use delays to terminate strings rather than an explicit delimiter)
> the term "square" for it.  "Enter your customer number ... followed by square".

I don't recall where but I have seen a glyph for it as a square with
slightly bowed in sides with short strokes pointing NE, SE, SW and NW
from the corners.
Signature

Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

Garrett Wollman - 12 May 2009 19:48 GMT
>I don't recall where but I have seen a glyph for it as a square with
>slightly bowed in sides with short strokes pointing NE, SE, SW and NW
>from the corners.

No, that's the generic "currency symbol".

-GAWollman

Signature

Garrett A. Wollman   | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those   | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL.     | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness

Nick Spalding - 13 May 2009 10:39 GMT
Garrett Wollman wrote, in <gucgai$17j8$2@grapevine.csail.mit.edu>
on Tue, 12 May 2009 18:48:50 +0000 (UTC):

> >I don't recall where but I have seen a glyph for it as a square with
> >slightly bowed in sides with short strokes pointing NE, SE, SW and NW
> >from the corners.
>
> No, that's the generic "currency symbol".

New to me, thanks.
Signature

Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

Default User - 12 May 2009 22:21 GMT
> > > So, which name should we use?  "Pound sign"?  "Number sign"?
> > > "Hash sign"? or "That little tic-tac-toe thingy"?
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Agreed since they started appearing on phones. Before that, I would
> have called them "number signs".

The symbol is used in C and C++ programming for preprocessor
directives. Example:

#include <stdio.h>

I always say "number-include" if I have to sound it out for some
reason. Most others say "pound-include", although I've not had anyone
complain about my usage. I haven't heard anyone say "hash-include".

Brian

Signature

Day 99 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

Mike Barnes - 12 May 2009 22:51 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Default User wrote:
>The symbol is used in C and C++ programming for preprocessor
>directives. Example:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>reason. Most others say "pound-include", although I've not had anyone
>complain about my usage. I haven't heard anyone say "hash-include".

I'd always say "hash include". Until now it never occurred to me that
anyone would say it any different.

And "stdio" always comes out "studio".

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

D. Glenn Arthur Jr. - 12 May 2009 23:55 GMT
>In alt.usage.english, Default User wrote:
>>The symbol is used in C and C++ programming for preprocessor
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>And "stdio" always comes out "studio".

I can't recall having heard "hash include" nor "number include",
but either would immediately make sense to me.  I've always heard
"pound include" even though in other contexts I do hear that
character called "hash".

And I'm used to saying and hearing "stidio" rather than "studio"
when pronouncing 'stdio' aloud.

(Maryland, US)

Signature

         D. Glenn Arthur Jr./The Human Vibrator, dglenn@panix.com
Due to hand/wrist problems my newsreading time varies so I may miss followups.
"Being a _man_ means knowing that one has a choice not to act like a 'man'."
     http://www.panix.com/~dglenn/      http://dglenn.livejournal.com

pdpi - 13 May 2009 14:27 GMT
> In article <hGdeD6Rc9eCKF...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid>,
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>  "Being a _man_ means knowing that one has a choice not to act like a 'man'."
>      http://www.panix.com/~dglenn/     http://dglenn.livejournal.com

Funny that, I've always voiced "#include" simply as "include", and
expect the listener to parse it correctly. Similarly, I always render
"#include <stdio.h>" as "Include standard IO".

In my mind, # is called a sharp, and its first meaning is the
cardinality of a set, which goes to show that being a programmer who
studied maths as an undergrad and is an amateur musician has serious
consequences.
Steve Hayes - 13 May 2009 16:45 GMT
>In my mind, # is called a sharp, and its first meaning is the
>cardinality of a set, which goes to show that being a programmer who
>studied maths as an undergrad and is an amateur musician has serious
>consequences.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that, and it was not until I got my
first computer (a NewBrain, in 1982) that I called it anything else but
"sharp". And what I called it then was "stream", because that was what it
stood for in NewBrain BASIC, just as I called $ "string".

So "PUT #3 A$" was "Put stream three A string"

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Sunil Sangwal - 17 May 2009 05:21 GMT
>> In my mind, # is called a sharp, and its first meaning is the
>> cardinality of a set, which goes to show that being a programmer who
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> So "PUT #3 A$" was "Put stream three A string"

Just yesterday, I came to know of another name for #, octothorpe, while
reading a text about some computer program.
James Silverton - 17 May 2009 13:59 GMT
Sunil  wrote  on Sun, 17 May 2009 09:51:33 +0530:

>>> In my mind, # is called a sharp, and its first meaning is
>>> the cardinality of a set, which goes to show that being a
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>> NewBrain BASIC, just as I called $ "string". So "PUT #3 A$" was "Put
>> stream three A string"

I had previously heard most of the variants on #: "number", "number
sign", "hash", "hash mark", "hash sign", "pound", "pound sign" and
"octothorp(e)" but mostly in the context of computer programming. To
tell the truth, I had never heard of the US usage of "pound sign" before
someone used it in a lecture on programming and I had forgotten about
octothorp until the recent posts. Since I realized I had never
previously raised the energy to find out about "octothorp", I went to
the online OED and the entry is interesting and also gives another
variant: "star and square"

-----------------
The hash sign (#), as it appears on the buttons of touch-tone
telephones and some other keypads.

1974 Telephony 25 Feb. 16/1 A few months ago, a story traveled through
the Bell System that the familiar symbol ‘#’..at long last had a name:
‘octothorp’. 1975 Vancouver Province 15 Nov. (Canad. Mag.) 32 Punch an
octothorpe when you reach your desk every morning, and the accounting
department automatically registers you in. 1987 Radio & Electronics
World Feb. 47/1 As well as the numbers 1 to 9 and 0, you also have
buttons marked with a star and square (also known as hash or octothorp).
1996 New Scientist 30 Mar. 54/3 The term ‘octothorp(e)’ (which MWCD10
dates 1971) was invented for ‘#’, allegedly by Bell Labs engineers when
touch-tone telephones were introduced in the mid-1960s. ‘Octo-’ means
eight, and ‘thorp’ was an Old English word for village: apparently the
sign was playfully construed as eight fields surrounding a village.
----------------

Signature

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Nick Spalding - 17 May 2009 14:04 GMT
James Silverton wrote, in <gup1of$fj6$1@news.eternal-september.org>
on Sun, 17 May 2009 08:59:59 -0400:

>  Sunil  wrote  on Sun, 17 May 2009 09:51:33 +0530:
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> the online OED and the entry is interesting and also gives another
> variant: "star and square"

I remember someone years ago who used to call it a chicken-scratch.

> -----------------
>  The hash sign (#), as it appears on the buttons of touch-tone
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> sign was playfully construed as eight fields surrounding a village.
> ----------------
Signature

Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 17 May 2009 14:58 GMT
>Since I realized I had never
>previously raised the energy to find out about "octothorp", I went to
>the online OED and the entry is interesting and also gives another
>variant: "star and square"

   you also have buttons marked with a star and square (also known as
   hash or octothorp)

The parenthetical words apply only to the "square" .

"Star" and "square" are different symbols: asterisk and hash.
They are at the bottom left and bottom right on this phone keypad image:
http://gallery.techarena.in/data/618/LG-KF510-Mobile-Phone-Keys.jpg

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Maria Conlon - 13 May 2009 19:03 GMT
D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote, in part:

> I can't recall having heard "hash include" nor "number include",
> but either would immediately make sense to me.

Does the "nor" in that sentence constitute a double negative?  A typo?

Sounds wrong to me....

Signature

Maria Conlon

Skitt - 13 May 2009 19:54 GMT
> D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote, in part:

>> I can't recall having heard "hash include" nor "number include",
>> but either would immediately make sense to me.
>
> Does the "nor" in that sentence constitute a double negative?  A typo?
>
> Sounds wrong to me....

Hmm, not to me.

"nor" is

1—used as a function word to introduce the second or last member or the
second and each following member of a series of items each of which is
negated <neither here nor there><not done by you nor me nor anyone>
2—used as a function word to introduce and negate a following clause or
phrase

(From M-W Online)

AHD4 has the following usage note:

USAGE NOTE:  When using neither in a balanced construction that negates two
parts of a sentence, nor (not or) must be used in the second clause: She is
neither able nor (not or) willing to go. Similarly, when negating the second
of two negative independent clauses, nor (not or) must be used: He cannot
find anyone now, nor does he expect to find anyone in the future; Jane will
never compromise with Bill, nor will Bill compromise with Jane. Note that in
these constructions, nor causes an inversion of the auxiliary verb and the
subject (does he … will Bill …). However, when a verb is negated by not or
never, and is followed by a verb phrase that is also to be negated (but not
an entire clause), either or or nor can be used: He will not permit the
change, or (or nor) even consider it. In noun phrases of the type no this or
that, or is actually more common than nor: He has no experience or interest
(less frequently nor interest) in chemistry. Or is also more common than nor
when such a noun phrase, adjective phrase, or adverb phrase is introduced by
not: He is not a philosopher or a statesman. They were not rich or happy.
See Usage Notes at neither, or1.

Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Maria Conlon - 13 May 2009 20:36 GMT
>> D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote, in part:
>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> philosopher or a statesman. They were not rich or happy. See Usage
> Notes at neither, or1.

Well, I don't think D. Glenn's sentence fits the "nor" guidelines.
(ICBW, of course.)

If we use "neither" (as a test) to balance "nor," we have: 'I can't
recall having heard neither "has include" nor "number include", but
either would immediately make sense to me.'

There's the double neg -- "can't" and "neither."

He might have said, "I recall hearing neither "has include" nor "number
include."

Or, "I can't recall hearing either "has include" or "number include."

Or, "I can't recall ever hearing "has include" or "number include."

My view: "Can't" doesn't serve as a substitute for "neither" in the
sentence.

Wondering if I'm losing my usage marbles,
Maria Conlon
Skitt - 13 May 2009 21:54 GMT
>>> D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote, in part:

>>>> I can't recall having heard "hash include" nor "number include",
>>>> but either would immediately make sense to me.
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
> Wondering if I'm losing my usage marbles,
> Maria Conlon

I'm inclined to agree with you now.  And no, not about your marbles.  I was
not paying enough attention to the "can't", that's all.  There are times
when things slide by me ...
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Maria Conlon - 14 May 2009 02:17 GMT
>>>> D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote, in part:
>
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
> I was not paying enough attention to the "can't", that's all.  There
> are times when things slide by me ...

Sort of like how "hash" repeatedly became "has" for me in my earlier
reply? (Sheesh.)

Signature

Maria Conlon

Robert Bannister - 14 May 2009 01:34 GMT
> D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote, in part:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Sounds wrong to me....

That might be a pondial difference. It sounds right to me, although I
admit "or" seems to have replaced "nor" in most sentences like that.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Maria Conlon - 14 May 2009 02:20 GMT
>> D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote, in part:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> That might be a pondial difference. It sounds right to me, although I
> admit "or" seems to have replaced "nor" in most sentences like that.

Pondial? Could be. I just felt that "can't" and "nor" amounted to a
double negative for me.

Signature

Maria Conlon, AmE.

Donna Richoux - 14 May 2009 10:14 GMT
> >> D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote, in part:
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Pondial? Could be. I just felt that "can't" and "nor" amounted to a
> double negative for me.

As far as I know, "nor" has to follow another negative, perhaps
"neither," perhaps "not," "no," "none," "never," and so on. There's the
odd dialectal or poetical "nor" that stands alone, or is paired with
another "nor," but those are exceptions.

Try making a sentence using "nor" where it doesn't follow a negative.

  * I have friends nor relatives in that town.

It doesn't make sense. True, many people today would say:

  I don't have any friends or relatives in that town.

which doesn't use "nor" at all. I think that the gradual disappearance
of "nor" is probably making our ears unsure of its proper use.

Signature

Best -- Donna Richoux

Maria Conlon - 14 May 2009 18:00 GMT
>> >> D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote, in part:
>> >>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Try making a sentence using "nor" where it doesn't follow a negative.

That is what D. Glenn did (in my opinion). The "can't" does not replace
the needed negative ("neither," most likely), that balances the "nor."

"Double negative," as I used it, was the wrong term. Maybe I should have
said that the "nor" in the original sentence constituted a
"half-negative."

Admittedly, I botched my earlier post(s) in this thread. Even so, I
think his use of "nor" was incorrect. My replies to Skitt might be a
little better than my original post in the thread.

[...]

Signature

Maria Conlon

D. Glenn Arthur Jr. - 14 May 2009 12:50 GMT
>D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote, in part:
>> I can't recall having heard "hash include" nor "number include",
>> but either would immediately make sense to me.
>Does the "nor" in that sentence constitute a double negative?  A typo?
>
>Sounds wrong to me....

Does it sound any less wrong if I stick in a comma before the 'nor'?

Signature

         D. Glenn Arthur Jr./The Human Vibrator, dglenn@panix.com
Due to hand/wrist problems my newsreading time varies so I may miss followups.
"Being a _man_ means knowing that one has a choice not to act like a 'man'."
     http://www.panix.com/~dglenn/      http://dglenn.livejournal.com

Maria Conlon - 14 May 2009 18:13 GMT
>>D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote, in part:

>>> I can't recall having heard "hash include" nor "number include",
>>> but either would immediately make sense to me.

>>Does the "nor" in that sentence constitute a double negative?  A typo?
>>
>>Sounds wrong to me....
>
> Does it sound any less wrong if I stick in a comma before the 'nor'?

Maybe; I don't know. All I do know is that my use of "double negative"
wasn't right.

I felt that "nor" was not balanced; it needed a "neither" or some other
partner, and "can't" didn't provide that. (As I just said to Donna in
another post, "half-negative" might have been a better term than "double
negative.")

YMMV.

Hoping I'm saying what I intend to say,

Maria Conlon
D. Glenn Arthur Jr. - 14 May 2009 20:40 GMT
>>>D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote, in part:
>>>> I can't recall having heard "hash include" nor "number include",
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Maybe; I don't know. All I do know is that my use of "double negative"
>wasn't right.

Agreed, though I'm less interested in dissecting your thinko
wrt that phrase than in picking apart why my phrasing looked
wrong and/or was wrong and/or reflects a regionalism.  
Unfortunately I can't spend much time on it this week so I'm
in 'drive-by posting' mode.

>I felt that "nor" was not balanced; it needed a "neither" or some other
>partner, and "can't" didn't provide that. (As I just said to Donna in
>another post, "half-negative" might have been a better term than "double
>negative.")

Next question:  does this version look or sound any better?

    I can not recall having heard 'hash include',
    nor 'number include' ...

Based on what you've said, I figure replacing 'not' with 'neither'
would fix the 'nor' problem (though it'd require a smidgen more
rearranging to feel exactly balanced), but here's another tiny
change I'm interested in your reaction to:

    I can't recall having heard 'hash include',
    nor have I heard 'number include' ...

And an even bigger question in my mind, is whether, having read
those two edits, your perception of my original sentence remains
the same.  That is, does having heard the omitted/contracted
words that were previously silently in my head, do you now find
yourself automatically supplying them when you reread

    I can't recall having heard 'hash include'
    nor 'number include' ...

turning it into

    I cannot recall having heard 'hash include'[,]
    nor [have I heard] 'number include'...

and if so (not that I'm assuming this is the case), whether the
"what I meant" version is a trivial mental edit away from a
grammaticaly decent version, in the way that most of us would
parse, "Going to the store?" as "[Are you] going to the store?"
and find an implied subject?  

Signature

         D. Glenn Arthur Jr./The Human Vibrator, dglenn@panix.com
Due to hand/wrist problems my newsreading time varies so I may miss followups.
"Being a _man_ means knowing that one has a choice not to act like a 'man'."
     http://www.panix.com/~dglenn/      http://dglenn.livejournal.com

Maria Conlon - 16 May 2009 01:40 GMT
>>>> D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote, in part:

>>>>> I can't recall having heard "hash include" nor "number include",
>>>>> but either would immediately make sense to me.
>>>> Does the "nor" in that sentence constitute a double negative?  A
>>>> typo?
>>>>
>>>> Sounds wrong to me....

>>> Does it sound any less wrong if I stick in a comma before the 'nor'?

>> Maybe; I don't know. All I do know is that my use of "double
>> negative" wasn't right.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> I can not recall having heard 'hash include',
> nor 'number include' ...

Others might think that version is better, but it still sounds "off" to
me, though something "off to me" can still be right.

(And btw I'd use "cannot" in that sentence, though "can not" is
preferable in certain circumstances, perhaps such as follows:

   A: Surely you must recall having heard blah, blah, blah....
   B: I can _not_ recall having heard blah, blah, blah....)

> Based on what you've said, I figure replacing 'not' with 'neither'
> would fix the 'nor' problem (though it'd require a smidgen more
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I can't recall having heard 'hash include',
> nor have I heard 'number include' ...

That sounds good.

> And an even bigger question in my mind, is whether, having read
> those two edits, your perception of my original sentence remains
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> parse, "Going to the store?" as "[Are you] going to the store?"
> and find an implied subject?

Answer to your questions: Hearing what was silent in your head does not,
alas, change my take on your original. (It might have if there'd been
additional context.) More important: I am hardly an expert, and my
opinion of your original sentence is just an opinion. Don't take it as
Gospel; there are others here in AUE who had no objection to your
original. (And many of those others have credentials far better than
mine.)

Signature

Maria Conlon, born 1943; resident of southeast Michigan, near Detroit;
native of east Tennessee.

Nick Spalding - 13 May 2009 10:45 GMT
Default User wrote, in <76u7imF1dq2lrU1@mid.individual.net>
on 12 May 2009 21:21:28 GMT:

> > > > So, which name should we use?  "Pound sign"?  "Number sign"?
> > > > "Hash sign"? or "That little tic-tac-toe thingy"?
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> reason. Most others say "pound-include", although I've not had anyone
> complain about my usage. I haven't heard anyone say "hash-include".

It is also used in BASIC FORMAT strings to mark a digit position.
Signature

Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

Evan Kirshenbaum - 11 May 2009 17:30 GMT
> Hello friends:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> symbol looks like a cursive capital "L" with a small vertical bar
> through it.

Horizontal, no?

> So why do we call what I have always used as a "number sign" (as in
> "#8") a "pound sign"??
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> === end quoted text ===

Your implication is almost exactly backwards.  Seven-bit character set
designers equated "£" and "#" almost certainly *because* "#" was read
as "pound".  That meant that when people in the UK sent mail that said
"£5", it would show up on our US terminals as "#5", which, though not
the way we used the pound sign, was at least transparent enough that
we could learn to read it.  (The alternative of mapping it to "$"
would, as I'm sure you see, have been a mistake.)

> But Wikipedia also claims that the sign is sometimes used in the U.S.
> to indicate the weight of a pound:

It is.

> === begin quoted text ===
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> === end quoted text ===

That's correct, but a bit misleading.  It used to be much more widely
used.  I'm only 44, and it's the form I use when writing recipes or
shopping lists.  And it's not just hand-written and not just
groceries.  You'll see it on signs and in non-food contexts, such as
"20# bond paper", e.g.,

   http://www.instaoffice.com/premium-bond-paper-20.3853a011.0.7.htm
   http://www.simplypaperandenvelopes.com/ps-102-7-colorsource-20-bond.aspx
   http://www.genealogicalstorageproducts.com/holperbonpap.html

or "10# bags" of things, e.g.,

   http://www.buckeyewildlifeinstitute.com/store/product.php?productid=59
   http://www.performbetter.com/detail.aspx_Q_ID_E_5322_A_CategoryID_E_420

It's nowhere near as common on signs and packages or in ads as it used
to be, but it's still current.

> I must say, before reading the article above, I have never seen the
> "#" sign used to indicate weight.  Seems an odd choice for something
> that must be "hand-written frequently or repetitively," since the
> symbol takes four distinct strokes to make.  Wouldn't some kind of
> single-stroke squiggle be more efficient (like, say, an upside-down
> cursive lower case "L")?

It appears to have arisen out of a cursive "Lb".

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |It is error alone which needs the
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |support of government.  Truth can
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |stand by itself.
                                      |                  Thomas Jefferson
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Mike Lyle - 11 May 2009 21:05 GMT
>> Hello friends:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Horizontal, no?
[...]

And the same sign also refers to other money pounds such as the old
Italian lira. (Even the still more defunct French livre, perhaps?) I
assume it was the Italians who invented the sign, perhaps even at the
same time they invented double-entry book-keeping.

Signature

Mike.

Ian Jackson - 12 May 2009 20:01 GMT
>>> Hello friends:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>assume it was the Italians who invented the sign, perhaps even at the
>same time they invented double-entry book-keeping.

A newcomer to Italy could find the use of the British pound sign (£) to
represent lire quite a shock. The exchange rate was typically 2000 lire
to the pound. Imagine seeing (say) a bar of chocolate marked as being
£1000!
Signature

Ian

Robert Bannister - 12 May 2009 02:38 GMT
> Your implication is almost exactly backwards.  Seven-bit character set
> designers equated "£" and "#" almost certainly *because* "#" was read
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> we could learn to read it.  (The alternative of mapping it to "$"
> would, as I'm sure you see, have been a mistake.)

They couldn't do that because ¢ is already in that position.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Mike Barnes - 12 May 2009 07:24 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>Your implication is almost exactly backwards.  Seven-bit character set
>designers equated "£" and "#" almost certainly *because* "#" was read
>as "pound".  That meant that when people in the UK sent mail that said
>"£5", it would show up on our US terminals as "#5", which, though not
>the way we used the pound sign, was at least transparent enough that
>we could learn to read it.

Hmmm. My instinct says that the £/# mapping predated international e-
mail (certainly common use thereof) by many years. Anyone know for sure?

My guess would be that a position was needed a position for £; the $
position was quite rightly rejected; and the # position was irresistible
because of the name coincidence. I suspect they didn't think it through
to the practical implications of that coincidence, which were, in the
main, confusion. What I don't know is who "they" were: whether UK ASCII
(as it was known) was initiated by the ASA or by some British body (or
company).

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 12 May 2009 13:13 GMT
>In alt.usage.english, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>Your implication is almost exactly backwards.  Seven-bit character set
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>position was quite rightly rejected; and the # position was irresistible
>because of the name coincidence.

That might be the case, but at the time I knew of the # only as the
"hash" mark/sign/symbol which was used by Americans to mean "number". It
was much later, possibly through AUE or AEU that Americans called it the
"pound" sign.

My assumption at the time was that the # position in the character code
was used for the UK currency symbol because # was not used in the UK and
was therefore redundant.

It was only when American designed programming languages using # escaped
from their homeland that problems arose.

> I suspect they didn't think it through
>to the practical implications of that coincidence, which were, in the
>main, confusion. What I don't know is who "they" were: whether UK ASCII
>(as it was known) was initiated by the ASA or by some British body (or
>company).

The International Standards Organisation produced the standard ISO 646
(in 1972). This defined the international version (the "invariant set")
of the character code plus national variants. Because # was used only in
North America it was not part of the invariant set. The use of # was a
local quirk.

There are many articles on the web about the history of character sets.
For instance:
http://tronweb.super-nova.co.jp/characcodehist.html

   A Brief History of Character Codes
   in
   North America, Europe, and East Asia

And on ISO 646:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_646

   ISO 646 is an ISO standard that since 1972 has specified a 7-bit
   character code from which several national standards are derived.
   
   Since the portion of ISO 646 shared by all countries (the "invariant
   set") specified only those letters used in the basic modern Latin
   alphabet, other countries using the Latin alphabet with extensions
   needed to create national variants of ISO 646 to be able to use
   their native languages. Since universal acceptance of the 8 bit byte
   did not exist at that time, the national characters had to be made
   to fit within the constraints of 7 bits, meaning that some
   characters that appear in ASCII do not appear in other national
   variants of ISO 646.

http://www.terena.org/activities/multiling/euroml/section04.html

   INTERNATIONAL STANDARDIZATION OF 7-BIT CODES, ISO 646

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 12 May 2009 13:14 GMT
>It
>was much later, possibly through AUE or AEU that Americans called it the
>"pound" sign.

Insert "that I learned".

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Maria Conlon - 12 May 2009 20:16 GMT
>> It
>> was much later, possibly through AUE or AEU that Americans called it
>> the
>> "pound" sign.
>
> Insert "that I learned".

I'm not sure which meaning (other than tic-tac-toe) the "#" sign had
first in my mind. It could have been "pounds," as I remember the
neighborhood grocer in the late 1940s used "#" to mean pounds (note the
plural), and I remember asking my mother what the symbol meant.

It may have been in grade school that I first encountered "#" meaning
"number." When I learned how to type (on a typewriter, not on a
computer), I used "#" to mean "number" mostly, but to mean "pound" when
needed. (Yes, both meanings were needed at times.)

When phones first had # signs, I had to ask at work what "press pound"
meant. That is, I didn't connect # on a phone with "pound" (as in
weight).  I'm not sure I connected # on a phone with anything. The same
goes for the * key. In fact, I can't recall using the * key at all yet.
(Poor memory?)

Signature

Maria Conlon, resident of southeast Michigan, near Detroit; native of
east Tennessee.
Born 1943 (which means I'm a "war baby," and not a "baby boomer").

Mike Barnes - 12 May 2009 23:11 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:

>>In alt.usage.english, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>Your implication is almost exactly backwards.  Seven-bit character set
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>was used for the UK currency symbol because # was not used in the UK and
>was therefore redundant.

If you're talking about characters not used by the general UK public,
there were other candidates such as caret and tilde.

>It was only when American designed programming languages using # escaped
>from their homeland that problems arose.

The very un-American computers designed and manufactured in the UK by
ICL used # for program names (for example, #XQMY), in the early 1970s to
my certain knowledge, and probably a lot earlier. They weren't ASCII
though; ICL used their own 6-bit character set.

I had several years' exposure to ICL computers before I learned that #
meant "number" in the USA. It was always spoken "hash" in my world.
Strangely, I'd looked at the title of Bob Dylan's "Rainy Day Women #12 &
35" (1966) many times and not even wondered what that # was doing there,
or (AFAICR) spoken it internally as anything more specific than
"splodge".

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

the Omrud - 12 May 2009 23:29 GMT
> In alt.usage.english, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> my certain knowledge, and probably a lot earlier. They weren't ASCII
> though; ICL used their own 6-bit character set.

1967 to my certain knowledge - that's when Dad started as a programmer
(he only lasted 2 years and eventually gave up and went back to
estimating, a trade which has since disappeared because of the computer)
and when he introduced me to my first mainframe, a 1901.

Signature

David
in a Hilton

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 13 May 2009 00:46 GMT
>> In alt.usage.english, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>estimating, a trade which has since disappeared because of the computer)
>and when he introduced me to my first mainframe, a 1901.

1964-ish. The # prefix for program names was used on the ICT 1900
Series. The 1900s were a development of the FP6000 from Canada. It is
possible that the program naming convention and some other conventions
were imported with the computer.

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICT_1900

   The basic character set was based around a 6-bit byte, which meant
   that only 64 different characters could be represented: upper case
   letters, the numbers 0 to 9 and a handful of other symbols.
   ....
   
   The ICL ASCII codes for the symbols $ (dollar) £ (pound) and #
  (hash) were different from the other major suppliers of computer
   equipment.

That brings back memories!

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

D. Glenn Arthur Jr. - 11 May 2009 23:52 GMT
>Hello friends:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>symbol looks like a cursive capital "L" with a small vertical bar
>through it.

I was a mere tyke when I understood that the pound sign was not
the same as the pound-currency sign, but I was confused for a
while as to why the number-sign was also called pound.  I have
seen it used (postfix) to denote pounds of force (weight) since
then, but I can't recall having seen and recognized it being
used that way before I reached adulthood, other than in examples
saying "the # symbol can also mean ..."

>[I hope the British Pound sign displayed correctly in the quote above
>-- this will depend on your browser settings.  

<snark> Why?  My browser settings don't have any effect on
my newsreader.  They're not even running on the same
computer. (My two main web browsers are running on a computer
right here in Baltimore, and my newsreader is running on a
computer in New York at the moment.) </snark>

>I must say, before reading the article above, I have never seen the
>"#" sign used to indicate weight.  Seems an odd choice for something
>that must be "hand-written frequently or repetitively," [...]

As noted above, I have.  Not terribly often, and some instances
were in rather old books, but I've seen it recently in the wild.

I've also started using it myself from time to time, not so much
for hurriedly handwritten stuff, but in electronic media where I
either want to save screen space or keystrokes/stylus-strokes, as
on a tiny PDA screen that I'm trying to squeeze a spreadsheet onto,
or an SMS message sent from a cell phone.  (On my PDA, '#' is two
gestures (a dot and a triple stroke); 'lbs' is three gestures
(first gesture is two straight strokes, or one curved stroke if
the curve is just right, second gesture is one straight stroke
and two curved strokes; third gesture is an s-shaped stroke).
If I'm in a hurry or my hands are tired, '#' is _much_ easier.)

>So, which name should we use?  "Pound sign"?  "Number sign"?  "Hash
>sign"? or "That little tic-tac-toe thingy"?

Any of those, plus (as someone else used) octothorpe.  Also, at
least in hackish circles, sometimes simply "hash" without the
"sign" after it.  The clarity of "pound sign" is, yes, dependent
on context.  "Pound sign" is the one most likely to come out of
my own mouth; "number sign" when I'm not sure that "pound sign"
will be interpreted unambiguously at that time and place.

Signature

         D. Glenn Arthur Jr./The Human Vibrator, dglenn@panix.com
Due to hand/wrist problems my newsreading time varies so I may miss followups.
"Being a _man_ means knowing that one has a choice not to act like a 'man'."
     http://www.panix.com/~dglenn/      http://dglenn.livejournal.com

Dave A - 13 May 2009 22:51 GMT
> I've always found it a little odd that the key on the telephone which
> looks like this -- # -- is called the "pound key," and the symbol on
> it is called "the pound sign".

British Telecom automated systems used to - maybe still do - ask you to
'press square' when you're required to use the # button.

(Someone may have mentioned that already but I haven't read all the
posts in detail)

Signature

Dave

 
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.