|About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us|
You are not logged in. [Log In] Wordsmith.org » Forums » General Topics » Q&A about words » Stone weight Register User Forum List Calendar Active Topics Search FAQ
#166 - 03/15/00 02:33 PM Stone weight
When the English say something weighs a 'stone', how many pounds is that?
#167 - 03/15/00 03:50 PM Re: Stone weight
Loc: NW Pennsylvania
The British 'stone' equals 14 pounds.
#168 - 03/22/00 07:35 PM Re: Stone weight
We use the term stone mainly for people's weight.
I always find it difficult watching a film where a person's weight is described in pounds as I have no concept of a person weighing 150 pounds but would find a ten or eleven stone person easy to imagine. It is further complicated by the fact that schools have been teaching metric units for years and we are told our childrens' weights in kilogrammes and are measured in kilogrammes in hospitals. (Not surprising as we buy petrol in litres and drives for miles.)
I have not come across stones being used for objects. For example we would have bought coal by the ton, delivered in hundredweight (8 stones or 112lb) bags. Twenty hundredweight make a ton. I note from my dictionary that in the USA this is known as a long hundrewight and a long ton, a short hundredweight being 100lb and a short ton being 2000lb - are these terms used?
#169 - 03/24/00 11:43 PM Re: Stone weight
To my knowledge, a ton is 2000 lbs. I have never heard the distinction between a long ton and a short ton.
#170 - 03/25/00 02:41 AM Re: Stone weight
Loc: Melbourne, Australia
As far as I know, the US ton is 2,000lb, and the British ton is/was 2,240lb. And of course the metric "tonne" of 1000kg is about 2,200lb! The sooner we all go metric the better, eh?
#171 - 03/27/00 05:26 AM Re: Stone weight
Loc: London, UK
Completely agree that metric is the way to go. Two problems I perceive, however are:
1. Metric terms seem less suited to human scales. 5 foot 7 still sounds easier to cope with than 172 cm. And 12 stone, or 168 pounds, still seems easier to relate to than 76 kilos.
2. The metric system itself is sometimes guilty of inconsistency. For instance, the ubiquitous mpg (miles per gallon), has two possible metric replacements, and I do not see one being favoured over the other: kilometres per litre (direct replacement), and litres per 100 kilometres (which may be more useful, but inverts the idea and tends to confuse the issue).
Having said which, I am still a firm advocate of the metric system. If you have ever tried to deal with areas or volumes in Imperial measures (square inches to the square foot to the acre?), particularly if you try to do the calculations in your head, you know the sort of frustration that can result! Give me multiples of 10 any time. (It doesn't help that American Imperial measures are not identical to British ones.)
the sunshine warrior
Forum Stats 8876 Members
Max Online: 3341 @ 12/09/11 02:15 PM
Newest Members RBG4L, jimrsbjorklund2, Ralph2, JoanPerrin51, Steve_Benko
8876 Registered Users
Who's Online 1 registered (1 invisible), 63 Guests and 3 Spiders online. Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters (30 Days)
endymion6 79 LukeJavan8 77 wofahulicodoc 69 A C Bowden 40 May 30 Rainmaker 15 Tromboniator 3 BranShea 1 Ralph2 1
wwh 13858 Faldage 13803 Jackie 11613 tsuwm 10532 LukeJavan8 7719 Buffalo Shrdlu 7210 AnnaStrophic 6511 Wordwind 6296 wofahulicodoc 6053 of troy 5400
Board Rules · Mark all read Contact Us · Wordsmith.org · Top
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.
Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat
© 2014 Wordsmith