According to every dictionary I have been able to find, the proper
British spelling of "metre" ends in -re, whereas the proper British
spelling of "perimeter" ends in -er.

Is there any reasonable explanation for this inconsistency?

--
Claus Tondering

At 02:20:07 on Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ct  wrote in 
:

>According to every dictionary I have been able to find, the proper
>British spelling of "metre" ends in -re, whereas the proper British
>spelling of "perimeter" ends in -er.
>
>Is there any reasonable explanation for this inconsistency?

There are two entirely different words here.  "Metre", with an -re, 
refers to a specific distance (100cm), which is officially defined as 
follows:  "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in 
vacuum during a time interval of 1?299,792,458 of a second".  From this 
word come variants, such as kilometre for 1000 metres, centimeter for a 
hundredth of a metre, etc.  (In American English, although they do not 
tend to use metric measurements, they do tend to mis-spell the word as 
"meter".)

"Meter", with an -er, refers to a measuring device, or to a measurement 
which is *not* confined to one specific distance (as with metre).  A 
perimeter is the measured distance around the outside of something; a 
gasometer is the large container which holds (and measures) domestic gas 
supplies;  a tachometer is the device in a lorry driver's cab which 
keeps track of his hours and mileage;  a parking meter shows how much 
time you have bought to leave your car there;  and your electricity 
meter shows how much power you have used.  There are many, many such 
words and phrases;  you might find it amusing to see how many you can 
collect!
-- 
Molly Mockford
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

18:31, giovedì 17 luglio 2008, Molly Mockford:
> At 02:20:07 on Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ct
> 
>>According to every dictionary I have been able to find, the
>>proper British spelling of "metre" ends in -re, whereas the
>>proper British spelling of "perimeter" ends in -er.
>>
>>Is there any reasonable explanation for this inconsistency?
> 
> There are two entirely different words here.  "Metre", with an
> -re, refers to a specific distance (100cm), which is
> officially defined as
> follows:  "The metre is the length of the path travelled by
> light in
> vacuum during a time interval of 1?299,792,458 of a second". 
> From this word come variants, such as kilometre for 1000
> metres, centimeter for a
> hundredth of a metre, etc.  (In American English, although
> they do not tend to use metric measurements, they do tend to
> mis-spell the word as "meter".)


This word was created in the late Eighteenth century.

From the greek "metron" measure.

 
> "Meter", with an -er, refers to a measuring device, or to a
> measurement
> which is *not* confined to one specific distance (as with
> metre).  A perimeter is the measured distance around the
> outside of something; a gasometer is the large container which
> holds (and measures) domestic gas
> supplies;  a tachometer is the device in a lorry driver's cab
> which
> keeps track of his hours and mileage;  a parking meter shows
> how much
> time you have bought to leave your car there;  and your
> electricity
> meter shows how much power you have used.  There are many,
> many such
> words and phrases;  you might find it amusing to see how many
> you can collect!


These words, at least the oldest of them, were created centuries
before "metre", so they changed the spelling in a way more
close to its English pronunciation.

In French and other languages they end with -metre, or similar,
in German and in Slovenian they end like in English: -meter.
(Italian -metro)


-- 
°¿°

On Jul 17, 10:22 pm, ADPUF  wrote:
> 18:31, giovedì 17 luglio 2008, Molly Mockford:
>
>
>
>
>
> > At 02:20:07 on Thu, 17 Jul 2008, ct
>
> >>According to every dictionary I have been able to find, the
> >>proper British spelling of "metre" ends in -re, whereas the
> >>proper British spelling of "perimeter" ends in -er.
>
> >>Is there any reasonable explanation for this inconsistency?
>
> > There are two entirely different words here.  "Metre", with an
> > -re, refers to a specific distance (100cm), which is
> > officially defined as
> > follows:  "The metre is the length of the path travelled by
> > light in
> > vacuum during a time interval of 1?299,792,458 of a second".
> > From this word come variants, such as kilometre for 1000
> > metres, centimeter for a
> > hundredth of a metre, etc.  (In American English, although
> > they do not tend to use metric measurements, they do tend to
> > mis-spell the word as "meter".)
>
> This word was created in the late Eighteenth century.
>
> From the greek "metron" measure.
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Meter", with an -er, refers to a measuring device, or to a
> > measurement
> > which is *not* confined to one specific distance (as with
> > metre).  A perimeter is the measured distance around the
> > outside of something; a gasometer is the large container which
> > holds (and measures) domestic gas
> > supplies;  a tachometer is the device in a lorry driver's cab
> > which
> > keeps track of his hours and mileage;  a parking meter shows
> > how much
> > time you have bought to leave your car there;  and your
> > electricity
> > meter shows how much power you have used.  There are many,
> > many such
> > words and phrases;  you might find it amusing to see how many
> > you can collect!
>
> These words, at least the oldest of them, were created centuries
> before "metre", so they changed the spelling in a way more
> close to its English pronunciation.
>
> In French and other languages they end with -metre, or similar,
> in German and in Slovenian they end like in English: -meter.
> (Italian -metro)
>
> --
> °¿°- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The phenomena is not without parallel analogies.

Petrus, Pedro, and Peter. Saltpetre, petrified.

Molly is entirely correct for British and American English,
but I note there is no real discussion of the competing
linguistic factors which may have fuelled AmEng development
in this manner.

But yes, assuming you (OP) have some online access but not,
necessarily, equivalent access to reliable reference sources,
the general rule of thumb is that if it pertains to the SI (Systeme
Internationale, or "Metric") units of measurement then it is "-metre",
but if the pronomial in question is the device which does the
actual measuring then it is "meter".

One may measure a perimeter however one wishes, in inches,
feet, American Miles, Metres, Roman Miles, Imperial Miles,
centiMetres, nanoMetres, picoMetres, TeraMetres, whatever.

Molly may, however, be wrong concerning "tachometer".

Until recently these were, officially, called "tachographs"
and records were kept by way of a stylus marking a disc
rather like a the film memes of seismograph or flatbed plotter.

They now are known as "digital tachos". This is rather more
interesting than the willpower I can summon to look into it
right now this moprning but the American English for "speedometer"
is "odometer" and the nearest etymologically is "tachymeter"
which is actually the rev counter (rev = rpm = revolutions per
minute) for the engine and bears no relation to speed or
distance of motion.

The leaflets I have seen from the British Driver and Vehicle
Licensing Agency (DVLA) and Vehicle and Operator Standards
Agency (VOSA) only refer to tachos and digital tachos, which
is a continuation of the shortforms drivers and operators
themselves use (e.g., I don't ever recall using a tachograph disc,
only ever a tacho disc), so the extension to tachometer, albeit
one I have used myself, may not technically be accurate.

G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2008 SIPSTON
--

In article
,
 FCS  writes:
>The phenomena is not without parallel analogies.
<snip>

In any other group I'd hesitate to mention this, but that should be
"phenomenon". "Phenomena" is the plural.
-- 
John Hall      "George the Third
                Ought never to have occurred.
                One can only wonder
                At so grotesque a blunder."     E.C.Bentley (1875-1956)

John Hall wrote:
> In article
> ,
> FCS  writes:
>> The phenomena is not without parallel analogies.
> <snip>
>
> In any other group I'd hesitate to mention this, but that should be
> "phenomenon". "Phenomena" is the plural.

Absolutely - that's almost precisely why this group was formed :-)
-- 
John Briggs

On Jul 20, 10:16 pm, "John Briggs"  wrote:
> John Hall wrote:
> > In article
> > ,
> > FCS  writes:
> >> The phenomena is not without parallel analogies.
> > <snip>
>
> > In any other group I'd hesitate to mention this, but that should be
> > "phenomenon". "Phenomena" is the plural.
>
> Absolutely - that's almost precisely why this group was formed :-)

"almost precisely"? Do you often post such effluded absolutes to
USENET?

> --
> John Briggs

G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2008 SIPSTON

FCS wrote:
> On Jul 20, 10:16 pm, "John Briggs"  wrote:
>> John Hall wrote:
>>> In article
>>> ,
>>> FCS  writes:
>>>> The phenomena is not without parallel analogies.
>>> <snip>
>>
>>> In any other group I'd hesitate to mention this, but that should be
>>> "phenomenon". "Phenomena" is the plural.
>>
>> Absolutely - that's almost precisely why this group was formed :-)
>
> "almost precisely"? Do you often post such effluded absolutes to
> USENET?

Almost constantly...

Or at least I would, if "effluded" were actually a word...
-- 
John Briggs

In article <i5Sgk.15876$CE1.8352@newsfe17.ams2>,
John Briggs  wrote:
> FCS wrote:
> > On Jul 20, 10:16 pm, "John Briggs"  wrote:
> >> John Hall wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> ,
> >>> FCS  writes:
> >>>> The phenomena is not without parallel analogies.
> >>> <snip>
> >>
> >>> In any other group I'd hesitate to mention this, but that should be
> >>> "phenomenon". "Phenomena" is the plural.
> >>
> >> Absolutely - that's almost precisely why this group was formed :-)
> >
> > "almost precisely"? Do you often post such effluded absolutes to
> > USENET?
> 
> Almost constantly...
> 
> Or at least I would, if "effluded" were actually a word...

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4746742.html

That was the only hit offered by Google, although it doesn't appear to be
anything to do with absolutes...

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

Tony Mountifield wrote:
> In article <i5Sgk.15876$CE1.8352@newsfe17.ams2>,
> John Briggs  wrote:
>> FCS wrote:
>>> On Jul 20, 10:16 pm, "John Briggs" 
>>> wrote:
>>>> John Hall wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> ,
>>>>> FCS  writes:
>>>>>> The phenomena is not without parallel analogies.
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> In any other group I'd hesitate to mention this, but that should
>>>>> be "phenomenon". "Phenomena" is the plural.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely - that's almost precisely why this group was formed :-)
>>>
>>> "almost precisely"? Do you often post such effluded absolutes to
>>> USENET?
>>
>> Almost constantly...
>>
>> Or at least I would, if "effluded" were actually a word...
>
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4746742.html
>
> That was the only hit offered by Google, although it doesn't appear
> to be anything to do with absolutes...

Yes, I found that - but couldn't work out what it was a mistake for.
-- 
John Briggs