French photographer needs English-speaking advice

[Roger Hicks]

I often have to thrash at least one of my assistants for inexcusable errors such as referring to ‘degrees kelvin’ instead of just ‘kelvin’.

Dear Helen,

Be fair. They might be OLD assistants who haven't caught up yet. When did it change? As far as I recall it was about 10-20 years ago.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Steve Smith]

According to Wikapedia it was 1967/1968.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin

Steve.

 

[Roger Hicks]

According to Wikapedia it was 1967/1968.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin

Steve.

Dear Steve,

All right: VERY old assistants...

Of course, that's assuming Wikipedia is right, which I am loath to do. I was taught 'degrees Kelvin' at school, but then again, around the time of the changeover (if those dates are right) was when I took my physics A-level.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Steve Smith]

I was taught 'degrees Kelvin' at school, but then again, around the time of the changeover (if those dates are right) was when I took my physics A-level.

Cheers,

R.

I took my Physics A level in 1983 but I still (wrongly) think of Kelvin as degrees!

I can't remember how it was taught though.

Steve.

 

[Struan Gray]

I was taught to say "x degrees on the Celcius scale of temperature." A while ago now....

Most of my colleagues say 'k'.

Definition of temptation: checking the English on a thesis written by a Swede who had dutifully written all temperatures in full as, for example, "thirty three Kevins".

 

[eddie gunks]

"all photos were taken using film, no flash and no photo shop."

simple and easy. says everything you are trying to say. most americans say take a photo not make one. add photo shop just to be sure everyone understands.

eddie

Hi! Nice to be here

5- all photography were made using film-no flash, no editing

Which one do you like better, or have you another suggestion?
It would be nice if you can help me!

 

[Bob F.]

"all photos were taken using film, no flash and no photo shop."

simple and easy. says everything you are trying to say. most americans say take a photo not make one. add photo shop just to be sure everyone understands.

eddie

Except that unfortunately the original post asked for English. That is not English. It has missing capitalization and "Photoshop" is one word and is a proper noun.

My teeth also grate, my eyeballs spin and my hair, such of it that remains, stands to attention when I hear "degrees kelvin"... Like others, I was taught "kelvin". You do not, for example, say "100 degrees metres", "10 kilo degree grams" or even "47.5 degrees pascal".

Cheers, Bob.

 

[Steve Smith]

Except that unfortunately the original post asked for English. That is not English. It has missing capitalization and "Photoshop" is one word and is a proper noun.

You must be nearly as pedantic as me!

My current favourites for correcting are the usual mis-placed apostrophe in plurals and correcting 'try and...' to 'try to...'

Steve.

 

[Bob F.]

You must be nearly as pedantic as me!

My current favourites for correcting are the usual mis-placed apostrophe in plurals and correcting 'try and...' to 'try to...'

Steve.

I try not to get too pedantic. Truth be told, I make far too many mistakes myself, but such blatant offences against humanity do stick out.

I do occasionally misplace an apostrophe: often writing "it's" when I mean the possessive "its", but I usually catch myself and correct it. Also, misplaced or missing hyphens are a speciality but I do try to write clearly using as correct a level of grammar and punctuation as I can recall. I also always run a spell-chequer [sic] on the posts. I am aware that many non-native speakers of English frequent these forums and making things even more difficult for them is not helpful.

Cheers, Bob.

 

[Helen B]

***

My teeth also grate, my eyeballs spin and my hair, such of it that remains, stands to attention when I hear "degrees kelvin"... Like others, I was taught "kelvin". You do not, for example, say "100 degrees metres", "10 kilo degree grams" or even "47.5 degrees pascal".

Cheers, Bob.

I note that you have not capitalised 'kelvin', unlike some reprobates I could mention.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I note that you have not capitalised 'kelvin', unlike some reprobates I could mention.

Dear Helen,

I was always taught that any unit taking its name from a person is properly capitalized, hence Amps, Volts, and indeed Kelvin. And of course kWh.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bob F.]

SI units (and SI derived units) when written out in full are all lowercase I think, although they do generally use a capital when abbreviated*: kelvin = K, pascal = Pa, newton = N, watt = W, etc.

Cheers, Bob.

[edit:

* Argh! Wrong word - should be "symbol"**

** See, I told you I make too many mistakes myself!...
]

 

[Helen B]

Roger,

What we were taught at the chalk-and-slate schools we went to, and what is correct according to the SI rules may be two different things. In SI it does not matter if a unit was named after Lord Kelvin or cousin Kevin, there's no capitalisation of unit names unless they would be capitalised for other reasons: eg when they are at the beginning of a sentence.

The symbol (it is not an abbreviation) may be capitalised, so the symbol for the kelvin is 'K', and the symbol for the watt is 'W', for example. As far as I know, the degree Celsius is the only exception, and that isn't a base SI unit, but a derived unit.

Best,
helen

 

[Ed Sukach]

... As far as I know, the degree Celsius is the only exception, and that isn't a base SI unit, but a derived unit.

I remember candela for light, mol for mass ... second for time ... but what is the standard for temperature?

Was Kelvin selected?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

What we were taught at the chalk-and-slate schools we went to, and what is correct according to the SI rules may be two different things. In SI it does not matter if a unit was named after Lord Kelvin or cousin Kevin, there's no capitalisation of unit names unless they would be capitalised for other reasons: eg when they are at the beginning of a sentence.

The symbol (it is not an abbreviation) may be capitalised, so the symbol for the kelvin is 'K', and the symbol for the watt is 'W', for example. As far as I know, the degree Celsius is the only exception, and that isn't a base SI unit, but a derived unit.

Best,
helen

Dear helen (or H),

You are of course correct that only the symbol -- abbreviation is another fight entirely -- should be capitalized. As Bob elegantly illustrates. But I think there are worse sins than capitalizing the units in full.

Sorry,

R.

 

[Helen B]

I remember candela for light, mol for mass ... second for time ... but what is the standard for temperature?

Was Kelvin selected?

Yes, the kelvin is the base unit for temperature. From NIST Special Publication 330, 2001 Edition:

"The definition of the unit of thermodynamic temperature was given in
substance by the 10th CGPM (1954, Resolution 3; CR, 79) which selected
the triple point of water as the fundamental fixed point and assigned to it
the temperature 273.16 K so defining the unit. The 13th CGPM (1967-1968,
Resolution 3; CR, 104 and Metrologia, 1968, 4, 43) adopted the name kelvin
(symbol K) instead of “degree Kelvin” (symbol K) and defined the unit of
thermodynamic temperature as follows (Resolution 4; CR, 104 and Metrologia,
1968, 4, 43):
The kelvin, unit of thermodynamic temperature, is the fraction
1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of
water."

Roger, there's no 'symbol/abbreviation' fight is there? The SI conventions and definitions are clearly and unequivocally laid down so there can be no argument. Whether one wishes to follow the SI conventions is one's own business.

Best,
H

PS The SI unit of mass is, of course, the kilogram. The mole (symbol mol) is the unit name for 'amount of substance'.

 

[Bob F.]

"Abbreviation" => "symbol" corrected above. Brain died from lack of exercise...

BTW, should we be measuring our electrical usage in joules, rather than kWh? But then, we do buy our petrol in litres and measure our consumption of it in miles-per-gallon over here...

Cheers, Bob.

 

[Ole]

But I think there are worse sins than capitalizing the units in full.

R, that depends on what you're trying to convey. There's a little bit of difference between MW (megawatt) and mW (milliwatt), and between Nm (newtonmeter) and nm (nanometer) - as I'm constantly trying to tell my colleagues.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, there's no 'symbol/abbreviation' fight is there? The SI conventions and definitions are clearly and unequivocally laid down so there can be no argument. Whether one wishes to follow the SI conventions is one's own business.

Dear Helen,

Except insofar as I would argue that the symbols are, in fact, a form of abbreviation. But that is a philological, grammatical or possibly even philosophical argument, rather than an SI definition.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

R, that depends on what you're trying to convey. There's a little bit of difference between MW (megawatt) and mW (milliwatt), and between Nm (newtonmeter) and nm (nanometer) - as I'm constantly trying to tell my colleagues.

Dear Ole,

Yes, but I did say in full, at which point the confusion is removed. The fun comes in those multiples bigger than unity, which as I recall are capitalized (I'm straining now but isn't it decilitres and Dekalitres, as well as milliwatts and Megawatts?). It's too late to recall details (I'm off to bed in 10 minutes after installing ANOTHER damn' internet computer) but are there any names/multiples that conflict?

Also, isn't it newton-metres not newtonmetres? As I say, I'm not arguing stringly, because it's late and I've recently finished a dinner of leftover kleftiko with potato and onion, accompanied by (freshly cooked) braised cabbage with duck-fat and air-dried ham (very kosher) and a bottle of Costieres de Nimes rosé. Then a creme renversé...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ole]

I'm not arguing at all - anyone who can think clearly after that meal has my full respect.

There's also the Norwegian tendency to scrunch all the words together in one long compund word as opposed to the English tendency to separate everything int their individual constituents. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there's a dash in the english spelling - I know there's none in Norwegian!

 

[haris]

Imagine writting of scientific equation or calculations of some formulae if full names of units are written instead of abbrevations...

Example: W=AV or Watts are equal to Ampers multiplied with Volts...

Now, imagine some long complicated equation or some matrix calculatios, integral or differential equations or like...

 

[Helen B]

Do you think that this thread is in danger of wandering off topic?

Dear Roger,

A symbol may, of course, be an abbreviated form of the full name it is representing or it may not. Almost all SI symbols are abbreviated forms of the full name. I think that the difference comes in the ways in which symbols and abbreviations are used. A symbol is immutable - strictly speaking you should not italicize it (see my carefully and deliberately de-italicized quote above) and you shall not change its case or pluralize it in any circumstances.

Megawatts would only appear at the beginning of a sentence. Anywhere else they would be megawatts. The full names of the prefixes follow the same conventions as the full names of the units - they are all lower case except at the beginning of a sentence. As you have already noted, the symbol for the prefix kilo is k, not K. Hecto and deca (also deka) prefixes are also symbolized with lower case letters: h and da.

In SI I think, but I'm not certain (will check), that a newton metre is a newton metre (or a newton meter), not a newton-metre or a newtonmetre (symbol N·m or N m). I also think that in non-technical texts it may be clearer to join the two words in some way.

Best,
H·B or H B

 

[Struan Gray]

See http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html and succeeding pages.

"degrees Celsius" is the only modern exception I know of to the rule that units should be all in lower case when written in full, even when derived from a proper name. I suspect it is because "degrees Celsius" is really a posessive, not a name: i.e. it means "Celsius' degrees".

More on Celsius here: http://www.astro.uu.se/history/Celsius_eng.html

 

[Helen B]

...I suspect it is because "degrees Celsius" is really a posessive, not a name: i.e. it means "Celsius' degrees".
...

That is also the official explanation given by the NIST for the exception: the unit name is 'degree', and they are those of Celsius, so 'Celsius' is a qualifier. Nothing in SI is casual.