Any Suggestions....Metal Rulers

Tue, Jan 31, 2006, 6:54am (EST+5) snipped-for-privacy@worldnet.att.net (George=A0E.=A0Cawthon) doth irregardlessly burble: If it is in the dictionary and it now is in some, it is a word. Nonetheless, what's wrong with it is using it marks one as an ignorant person.

Wouldn't "irregardless" be more proper than "nonetheless"?

JOAT Shhh... that's the sound of nobody caring what you think.

Don't even THINK of calling them "rulers" or "rules" in front of a machinist or aircraft mechanic. They are "scales".

Dale Scroggins

(In searching some old attic boxes, yesterday afternoon, I happened upon a Brown & Sharpe #4 rule(r), in pristine condition. I have no idea where I acquired it. Double sided, it has four scales, graduated in 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 and 1/64's. It is heavy like steel, but has some type of anodized or brushed surface, and presents with a light gun-metal gray surface with black printing. It does not appear to be engraved.)

Phillip Stanley, in his "Source Book for Rule Collector" says that "rule" is proper in all instances, except for school "rulers"

It used to be safe to consider that if a word was in the dictionary, it was a real word, but these days that measurement can't be trusted. Look up the word "Ax" in the dictionary - use dictionary.com and if memory serves me correctly, try webster.com. That a word shows up in the dictionary is not really proof it's a proper word. Words are sometimes defined in the dictionary as improper variations of a "real" word.

Thanks!

Barry

Whose dictionary?

As does 10 foot tape rule. Now 10' tape measure sounds correct.

Yeah... A friend and I were conversating. LOL I think it is when you try to define the word it gets tricky.

IIRC a rule has one measurement. A scale had multiple scales of measurement. No?

If there is a point to this, would you mind getting to it?

All you just proved is that there are others with bad language skills.

"As long as a word communicates it is "real", and only the pedants get their panties twisted."

But if by "pedants" you mean people who are smarter than you are, perhaps you ought to give them a listen. They might have good reason. Good reasoning is "real" too.

Regardlessly yours, and with panties feeling great, H

Perhaps we should petition the Usenet Gods to change the name of the group to "rec.lexicology."

Mutt

Tue, Jan 31, 2006, 7:07am (EST-1) snipped-for-privacy@nospam.com (Swingman) wisely sayeth: As long as a word communicates it is "real", and only the pedants get their panties twisted.

Twisted panties? No big deal. Beats the Hell outa gettin' yer pendants twisted..

JOAT Shhh... that's the sound of nobody caring what you think.

No - He (IMHO) defended your statement, by looking at both common usage and companies I consider to be authorities.

Look at those that say the proper term is "rule" and not "ruler":

General Stanley Lufkin Starrett

I think you owe Amused an apology for backing up your claim with more than opinion, and doing it in a way that was polite and allows people to make up their own mind.

Thank you, Amused, for providing some facts and resolving the issue - in my mind. Or course, if you consider Rhinotools or The Ruler Company to be an authority, you may have a different opinion. That's okay as well.

We are allowed to pick those we consider to be authorities, and to make up our own mind based on that.

"Precise rules are necessary for precision work."

"Precise rulers are necessary for precision work."

Does precision in language trump precision in communication? I would submit that in this particular case (admittedly a contrived example), a rigid adherence to a specialized definition, could well create confusion in a non-specialized audience.

If you feel the need, you may express your opinion at length and I would stipulate that whatever opinion you express would have it's passionate defenders, only noting that entirely opposite opinions would be able to muster supporters, too.

BTW, the only reason I've bothered with all the research is that I happen to believe that precision in language is important, as long as a rigid adherence to the rules is not used as a bludgeon to stop all language development.

So, after some research, I am quite prepared to accept that "rules" is probably preferred, in some arenas, but would argue that "rulers" is accepted in others. (It's a machinist's rule, it's a graphic artist's ruler)

I remain unconvinced that in the general USENET format, (specifically rec.woodworking) "rule" is superior to "ruler". I am willing to accept that in another NG, rec.machinist (if there is such a group) "ruler" might be totally unacceptable.

However, a question does emerge.

"Why would "rulers" be considered correct in schools, (a primary training arena for language), but incorrect in all other applications?"

James...

I know Robatoy, I'm just allowing you to rant. ;-)

jc

I was taught that a rule is for measuring with and a ruler is for drawing lines with. Granted that was 50-odd years ago, but I see no reason to change.

Then there's college ruled paper:

To rule something, use a ruler.

:q

I might consider that once I get an explanation why he felt the need to call me a schizophrenic with a skin condition after my making a comment on word usage.