"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

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

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

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.


As this is probably posted for Those Down Under in New Zild as of a
certain day 39 years ago... Monday the tenth of July... DC Day!

When pence finally made cents (sorry).

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 11:18:56 +0100, "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.

You learn something every day.

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.

London and Paris are 211 mile apart, are they?

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com