"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:16:52 on
Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Richard M Willis
remarked:
What is wrong with "one pence coins" ?

Linguistically should be "One Penny coins", and whatever the merits of
an argument that the currency is called Pounds and Pence (of which the
coin has a value of Zero pounds and one pence), the coin *does* have
"One Penny" written on it.

Hmm. I measure things in metres, centimetres and millimetres. I don't call
this "m AND cm AND mm". Consequently, I would call our currency pounds xor
pence.

"penny" does not exist as far as I am concerned.
"one-pence coin","one-hundred-pence coin", "one-deci-pound coin",
"five-hundred-pence note" are all valid in the same

way that a "one-centimetre rule" or a "one-hundred-centimetre box" are all
valid.

Richard [in SG19]




And you wouldn't call a £1 coin a "One Pounds Coin", would you? (Which
you would by analogy with "Pounds and Pence")
--
Roland Perry



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In message , at 10:31:02 on
Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Richard M Willis
remarked:
I would call our currency pounds xor pence.

So:

£1 coin is a "One pounds coin" and
£10.50 is either "Ten point five pounds", or "One thousand and 50 pence"

I don't think any of this is in general usage.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

£1 coin is a "One pounds coin" and
£10.50 is either "Ten point five pounds", or "One thousand and 50 pence"
Yes. Those are all valid.

I don't think any of this is in general usage.
Probably correct.

Richard [in SG19]



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 10:31:02 on
Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Richard M Willis
remarked:
I would call our currency pounds xor pence.

So:

£1 coin is a "One pounds coin" and
£10.50 is either "Ten point five pounds", or "One thousand and 50 pence"

I don't think any of this is in general usage.

Or "Ten guineas". (But that's not in general usage either).
--
Thoss

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:31:02 +0100, "Richard M Willis"
wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:16:52 on
Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Richard M Willis
remarked:
What is wrong with "one pence coins" ?

Linguistically should be "One Penny coins", and whatever the merits of
an argument that the currency is called Pounds and Pence (of which the
coin has a value of Zero pounds and one pence), the coin *does* have
"One Penny" written on it.

Hmm. I measure things in metres, centimetres and millimetres. I don't call
this "m AND cm AND mm". Consequently, I would call our currency pounds xor
pence.

"penny" does not exist as far as I am concerned.

Simply wrong. It's the singular form of pence in the same way that
pound is the singular form of pounds.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

"James Farrar" wrote in message

Simply wrong. It's the singular form of pence in the same way that
pound is the singular form of pounds.

"penny" is the singular form of "pence", so that "pence" is inherently
plural ?! I didn't know that. In fact, I didn't know that units of
measurement *had* plurals !

zero pence, one pence, two pence, .. in the same
way
as
zero centimetre, one centimetre, two centimetre.

Richard [in SG19]



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Richard M Willis wrote:

"James Farrar" wrote in message

Simply wrong. It's the singular form of pence in the same way that
pound is the singular form of pounds.

"penny" is the singular form of "pence", so that "pence" is inherently
plural ?! I didn't know that.

Isn't learning wonderful.

We need the word penny (which, just to extend your education, also has
the plural "pennies") so that we can communicate properly.

Thus, we can say:

I have one penny. - this is how much money I have.
I have a one penny coin. - this is the form it is in.

And

I have two pence - this is how much money I have

I have two pennies/I have two one penny coins/I have a two pence coin.
- to indicate the form it is in.

zero centimetre, one centimetre, two centimetre.

Arguable. Perhaps correct in technical documents, but to TMOTCO, it's
zero centimetres, one centimetre, two centimetres.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683828.html
(158 749 at Portsmouth Harbour, 30 Dec 1998)

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 12:05:39 GMT, Chris Tolley
wrote:

Richard M Willis wrote:

zero centimetre, one centimetre, two centimetre.

Arguable. Perhaps correct in technical documents, but to TMOTCO, it's
zero centimetres, one centimetre, two centimetres.

Technical documents would always abbreviate.

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.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

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".

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