On 03 Jul 2006 21:46:45 GMT, Adrian wrote:

James Farrar ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Describing a length as "zero centimetres" is redundant, incidentally;
if the length is zero it's zero whatever the unit and thus is probably
best phrased as "zero length", depending on context.

I think it's fairly safe to say that "zero miles" may very well cover a
wider range of zero than "zero microns".

That rather depends on context. I'd say there's a difference between
"0 cm" and "0 nm" but not between "zero centimetres" and "zero
nanometres".

Maybe I'm out of touch with current scientific noation, though.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:27:40 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk"
wrote:

In general, all punctuation and diacritical marks are dropped to make signs
and addresses as easy to read/write as possible. Therefore "St. John's"
becomes "St Johns" (notice the two changes). At least where English is the
common language; I assume in languages where accents and such are used more
frequently, signmakers are more tolerant of them

Sorry - I've had technical problems, so am following this up very
late, but have also observed a lot of punctuation on signs.

Removing punctuation certainly isn't the policy on London Underground
signage. In the new Western ticket hall at King's Cross the signs
refer consistently to 'King's Cross' and 'St. Pancras' even though, as
discussed elsewhere in the thread, it would be more usual to write 'St
Pancras' without a full-stop in British English at least.
Incidentally 'St Pancras' is both the form used on most of the main
line station signage and the form that I would normally use in
writing.

As it happens, since this thread started, I drove past a well-known
posh restaurant just outside Oxford, and noted signs to it as 'Le
Manoir au Quat' saisons' *with* the apostrophe on after 'quat'. These
were standard British road signs with the brown background used for
tourist attractions and the like, and again the convention appears to
be to include punctuation on these signs

Martin

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 13:32:51 GMT, Phil Clark
wrote:

Modern Dutch uses apostrophes in the plural of certain (or all?) nouns
ending in a long single vowel, such as "2 taxi's" or "3 piano's".

So does English...

http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif

On 30 Jun 2006 10:20:50 -0700 you wrote:

And, from the London Borough of Haringey:

http://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/env...umb ering.htm

In particular "No use of punctuation except for the abreviation of St,
Saint." I find this ironic because St for Saint does not need a period
because it contains the final letter.

These would appear to be for new addresses only. There are plenty of
long-established street names in the borough which aren't compliant
with these standards (such as 'The Chine' which breaks the stern
admonition not to start street names with 'The').

Martin

DERWENT St Johns Wood or St John's Wood?
03 Jul 2006 21:46:45 GMT, Adrian

James Farrar ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Describing a length as "zero centimetres" is redundant, incidentally;
if the length is zero it's zero whatever the unit and thus is probably
best phrased as "zero length", depending on context.

I think it's fairly safe to say that "zero miles" may very well cover a
wider range of zero than "zero microns".

:-)

In the abscence of any indication of precision I'm inclined to agree
with you.


PRAR
--
http://www.i.am/prar/ and http://prar.fotopic.net/
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. --Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
- If you must email me use the Reply to address and not

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
In general, all punctuation and diacritical marks are dropped to make signs
and addresses as easy to read/write as possible. Therefore "St. John's"
becomes "St Johns" (notice the two changes). At least where English is the
common language; I assume in languages where accents and such are used more
frequently, signmakers are more tolerant of them

Melbourne has a laneway named after Australian rock band AC/DC (where
the slash is generally written as a lightning bolt). But slashes -- let
alone lightning bolts -- aren't permitted in Melbourne City Council
street names, so it's "ACDC Lane".

Pic of the sign he
http://www.danielbowen.com/2004/10/22/ac-dc/

Regards,

Daniel

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:02:18 +0200, Giovanni Drogo
wrote:

Is panini already a plural word ?
Yes, the singular is panino.

As well as "salame" is the singular of "salami" ...

... as native italian improper usage of the plural form sounds to me at
least funny when not irritating ...

I tend to disagree. What is plural in one language can very well become
singular in another language. Whether it was plural in the original
lanuage does not matter very much.

I tend to disagree with the latter statement as a matter of principle,
although it might be correct as an observation of actual usage.

I tend to think that if panini is going to be used as a singular, it
should be one of those words that is always plural, like trousers. So
one panini, two panini.

Phil Clark wrote:

one of those words that is always plural, like trousers.

Never stayed in a hotel room with a trouser press?
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13309739.html
(43 090 at London Kings Cross, 29 Nov 1980)

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 12:42:17 GMT, Phil Clark
wrote:

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:02:18 +0200, Giovanni Drogo
wrote:

Is panini already a plural word ?
Yes, the singular is panino.

As well as "salame" is the singular of "salami" ...

... as native italian improper usage of the plural form sounds to me at
least funny when not irritating ...

I tend to disagree. What is plural in one language can very well become
singular in another language. Whether it was plural in the original
lanuage does not matter very much.

I tend to disagree with the latter statement as a matter of principle,
although it might be correct as an observation of actual usage.

I tend to think that if panini is going to be used as a singular, it
should be one of those words that is always plural, like trousers.

"One pair of trousers" "two pairs of trousers".

So one panini, two panini.

Not really the same thing.

Sheep, maybe.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:08:25 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote:

Phil Clark wrote:

one of those words that is always plural, like trousers.

Never stayed in a hotel room with a trouser press?

Adjectival form.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com