Explain To Me How Measurement Is Not Language
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">side-topic</div> Since people keep rolling their eyes at me rather than offering any logical thought, please explain to me how a system of measurement is not a language. This is related to the metric thread, where euro's all complain that the US should standardize on the metric system, yet refuse to standardize their several hundred languages. I wouldn't have a problem with this except their main metric argument seems to be it saves money and lets everyone communicate better.
So, without getting side-tracked (looking at you, ryo) someone convince me that the two are not analogous and that all these europeans' arguments are not hypocritical.
GO!
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
So, without getting side-tracked (looking at you, ryo) someone convince me that the two are not analogous and that all these europeans' arguments are not hypocritical.
GO!
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
A numerical system is a method of conveying data.
They aren't analagous, they are identical. A numerical system is just a subset of language.
MonsE makes an accurate and excellent point.
The imperial/federal system sucks a certain amount of nuts for various reasons, but it also has a number of useful aspects, not least that imperial measures correspond to useful real life quantities and are thus inherently easier to remember, providing you have some experience of real life. Of course, for engineering and mathematical purposes, metric is far better, but that's not what the thread is about, is it?
A numerical system is a method of conveying data.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Different analogy:
A train is a means of conveying goods and people.
A car is a means of conveying goods and people.
Does that make a car a train?
Yes, it is possible to transport objective data with both, but while this is the sole purpose of a numerical measurement system, language can much more:
Apart from being a medium for information, it can be an art, a means of social interaction (which has, as we all know, often nothing to do with objective informations), even a state of conciousness.
It is not wrong to call measurement systems languages, but it is definetely very simplified.
A train is a means of conveying goods and people.
A car is a means of conveying goods and people.
Does that make a car a train? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both are transportation.
Just as language and measurement are forms of communication.
(don't really care to jump in, just an observation)
In this way we see that, although measurements are a part of language, it's really a mootpoint, considering that every word out of your mouth or keyboard is a part of language, and is subject to the constraints of language.
Measurement, however, is a special case of language. It is so very usefull that a universal system be put in place that it would be stupid not to overlook the fact that measurement is a part of language and just standardise the whole thing. Just like species names are standardised to latin. Sure, the names of certain animals are part of a particular countries language, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be helpfull and even necessary to standardise them. The issue of whether or not something is part of language is therefore rendered invalid by necessity.
Languages are not. When you speak to someone in German, you're not just speaking to them. You are speaking to them in German for the specific purpose of speaking to them in German. You cannot speak German to somebody in English. They are not the same thing. It's impossible to explain otherwise. You can translate to different languages, but it loses its meaning. For example, translate something from Chinese into English. "Ni Hao," meaning "hello" is translated as "You Good." It's not the same.
Even if what I'm saying above is total nonsense, think of this. The metric system holds a monopoly, if you will, in the world. Most countries use metric. The US, and others that I don't know of, use imperial, but they are much fewer. If the whole world spoke Esperanto and only the French spoke French, I would say that they ought to change. But it's not like that. There are two major measurement systems; there are thousands of languages. Not one holds a MAJORITY. Chinese is spoken by ... quite a few people, but it does not make up 50+% of all spoken language.
Measurement is practically translating language into a uniform system of numbers.
So, yes, NZ measurement is a simplified language, but that's its purpose.
In, the case of architecture and engineering. Measurements are used in telling the construction the dimensions of something in a way that words cannot. Just because its not words doesn't mean it's not a language, and just because it's only used for one purpose doesn't mean its not a language either.
grams m8. Its a late imperial one so they have the metric?
grams m8. Its a late imperial one so they have the metric? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Grams are for metric.
Ounces and pounds are for Imperial.
okay okay it's a obscure William S. Burroughs quote. =)
You can't really communicate using only measurement. With language you can. Without language, you can't actually even _say_ those measurement things, because for example "one metre" is part of language. However, you can say lots of stuff even without measurement system.
"15"
"Kay. What about that one over there, in imperial?"
"Twenty-seven thirty-seconds of an inch"
So metric= number, imperial= language.
grams m8. Its a late imperial one so they have the metric? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Grams are for metric.
Ounces and pounds are for Imperial. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
ounces and pounds are weight, though... not mass. As in weight = newtons (in SI), while mass = kilograms.
Imperial. Weight = pounds, mass = ?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Mass - imperial
The British imperial system of mass is a combination of three mediaeval French systems, the avoirdupois ("has weight") system, the apothecary (i.e. druggist or pharmacist) system, and the Troy (named after the mediaeval trading city of Troyes). All three systems were based on the Troy grain unit of mass (about 65 mg). The grain was originally the mass of a barley seed. The Troy and apothecary systems were designed for precious metals, gemstones, and medicines all weighing less than one Troy pound (5760 grains; 12 Troy ounces; about 373 g). The avoirdupois system was designed for heavy (hence the name "has weight"), commonplace objects greater than one avoirdupois pound (7000 grains; 16 avdp. ounces; about 454 g). The abbreviation of lb. for pound comes from the Latin "libra" meaning balance while the word pound comes from the Latin "pondus" meaning weight.
When the British adopted the avoirdupois system in the 1500's they added the Roman stone giving it a mass of 14 avdp. pounds (about 6.4 kg). The British (eventually including Australia and New Zealand) also changed the size of the the quarter, hundredweight (cwt), and ton to 28 avdp. pounds (i.e. 2 stone; about 12.7 kg), 112 avdp. pounds (about 51 kg), and 2240 avdp. pounds (about 1017 kg) respectively from the original definitions of 25 avdp. pounds (about 11.3 kg), 100 avdp. pounds (abut 45 kg), and 2000 avdp. pounds (about 908 kg) and these are refered to as "long" masses. North America retained the original avoirdupois defintions of quarter, hundredweight, and ton and refered to these as "short" masses.
The adoption of metric, therefore, is not the first French measurement system that Britain and her colonies chose to use.
Mass - metric
The developers of the metric system of mass had two goals: (1) to have one system that covers all ranges of mass (unlike the Troy and avoirdupois systems used in imperial) and (2) integrate mass into the metric systems of length and volume to form one cohesive system.
They decided to let one gram (from the Latin "gramma" meaning "small weight") be the mass of 1 millilitre (i.e. 1 cubic centimetre) of water at 4°C (when water is most dense). Later in order to simplify scientific calculations the kilogram was defined as being the base unit of mass. One kilogram was equal to 1 litre (1 cubic decimetre) of pure water at 4°C.
In 1901 the kilogram was finally defined as the unit of mass equal to the mass of the international platinum-iridium prototype of the kilogram. This physical object was selected over the water defintion since it is extremely difficult to measure the mass of liquid water accurate to within many decimal places without having a container that also meets international standards. So rather than defining a container the General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) changed the defintion of the kilogram. However since the creation of the kilogram its actual mass of 1000 g has never changed.
For general use only the microgram, milligram, gram, kilogram, and tonne (megagram) are used.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
btw, some of the logic in this thread is quite disturbing.
To say something is a foot is to compare its length to that of a standard foot size (in theory, not all peoples feet are the same size)
When you describe someone as "cool" your brain associates that adjective with all the things and people that you know to be "cool" and then you have an understanding of the way this person is being described.
Just something to think about.
Language is a form of expression. Like any form of expression (art, music, dance, etc), it is deeply rooted in the particular culture of its origin. Various cultures developed various expressions to say things that were particularly meaningful or understandable to them. Try to explain a monsoon to someone who has never seen rain. Make sure to bring Tylenol.
Measurement, as far as I know, does not hold many "deep roots" in culture. Personally, I have never had any meaningful interactions with the slug (one "slug" is the name given to a mass accelerated at 1 foot per second per second by a force of 1 pound). I know there are derivations for all of them. It used to be that these measurements were also related to the culture. Usually they had to do with local plants (the bushel and grain, as examples).
But really, haven't we moved a little beyond things called the foot-pound and the slug? Math is standadized. It's standardized for a reason. If you show a foreigner the 'plus' sign, he'll (hopefully) know what you're talking about. Heck, I taught my German exchange student basic calculus. Man, that was a headache. The point is, despite language barriers, he could do the same math I could. The word "multiply" didn't mean a danged thing to him, but the 'x' sign did.
My final opinion. Language and measurement are, indeed, different. Language is part of culture, while measurement is a way of describing mathematically-measurable quantities. If math is standard, the way of describing its measurements should also be standard. It'd sure make it a lot easier on all of us. Imagine, no more reading a road map after a semester of physics and trying to remember how long a mile is.