I've just learned of this term but it is perhaps nothing new to many here. m-w.com turns up zip on this, dictionary.com too. The term is apparently fairly well known amongst publishers though. It is defined here www.gpcpapers.com/glossary.cfm as follows:
"The mass of a unit area of paper or board determined by the standard method of test: it is expressed in g/m2."
So is it etymologically related to 'grammar', and does this mean that correct writing carries more weight?
does this mean that correct writing carries more weight?
Actually, correct writing carries less weight, B-Y, because there is less of it when it's done correctly. That's speaking volumetrically*, of course.
Have you noticed? The best writers can speak volumes without writing volumes. Publishers love that. It saves them a lot of grammage. [I wonder if there is a connection between "grammage" and "dunnage". Newspapers took their masthead from sailing ships so maybe they took their dunnage from that source as well. No-one wants to add ballast to a newspaper. It's just dead weight.]
* But qualitatively? Who could disagree with you? :)
was this so obvious that it was deemed to be misleading?
Basis Weight: The weight in pounds of a ream of paper. Its metric counterpart is
grammage, where mass per unit area is expressed in units of
grams per square meter.
-ron o.
: )
edit:
http://home.inter.net/eds/paper/grammage.html
Its metric counterpart is grammage, where mass per unit area is expressed in units of grams per square meter.
You just sunk my sailing ship theory, tsuwm. :(
> was this so obvious that it was deemed to be misleading?
Pardon me good man, I was merely looking to find out who uses or knows the word (and unit of m.) as it does seem thinly spread; and also to ascertain whether or not it is considered a useful coinage, rather than using 'basic weight' say. Sounds a little clunky to me and I don't know it, dat's all. [huff]
In some of the older versions of MS Word, when there was a big push for metrification in the US, the spell check function would display something like this:
< Tools, Spelling and Grammar >
Readability Statistics
Readability
Passive Sentences 6%
Flesch Reading Ease 67.1
Grammage 874.2 g/m2
What are the FRE units anyway?
Grammage Spammage, mathcats, gimmie grammage on this...
Note: With deference to the quirks of the Faldage,
whose trap is tripped when the screen goes wideeeeeeee,
I'll defer this puzzle to a new thread. See Grammage Spammage.
sorry crispy-by, just reacting here to the notion that it's any more than it is. and for the record, gram is from the Greek word for for 'a small weight' (the L. gramma is the closest I can come), and grammar comes from classical L. and Gr. (grammatica in L.) denoting the methodical study of literature.
and so (misleadingly) it's not to be confused with grandmother/grandma/gramma/gram(s) either. : )
Grammage Spammage
A classic example of high cost/benefit ratio.
Oh yes, Mister Faldage, you must one day tell me about the skin off your teeth.
Milum
In reply to:
for the record, gram is from the Greek word for for 'a small weight' (the L. gramma is the closest I can come), and grammar comes from classical L. and Gr. (grammatica in L.) denoting the methodical study of literature.
Grammatika comes from the Greek gramma, grammatos, which means letter, writing, and is also the name of small weight.
See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=#22740
Bingley
Bingley, herein I will further demonstrate my nescience when it comes to the classical languages.
does gramma = writing, and gramma = small weight mean that there is an actual lexical connection; or is it possible that the term gramma was simply overloaded?
(such as the present-day cleave and cleave.)
I don't know. Since the LSJ has them in the same entry, I assume that the compilers thought there was a connection. They were not averse to putting unrelated words which are similar in form as different entries.
Bingley
<I was merely looking to find out who uses or knows the word>
by, I don't know or use it, but I do quite happily use 'gsm' as a way to define paper 'quality' or thickness. This would equate to 'grams per square metre', or grammage, surely? It's what printers and publishers and stationers use as a standard in Oz at least, and from my vague recollections of time past also in other English-speaking countries.
<What are the FRE units anyway?>
Years and years and decades ago, someone told me about a readability test you could run on a piece of writing to determine how 'difficult' it was. I don't think it was Flesch but cannot for the life of me remember what it was.
I do however remember that the key factors counted were:
- number of passive constructions
- average number of words per sentence
- number of words of three or more syllables (as percent of total words, I think)
These variables were chucked into a calculation and the resulting socre was meant to indicate the number of years of full-time education required to understand the passage in question.
At the time, we had just finished a whole new set of marketing literature for the transportation and distribution (logistics) industry. We ran the test on it and came up with 17 years of education required to understand our pamphlets - this at a time when most of our market were ex-warehousemen or ex-truck drivers. Hmmm...
I also heard apocryphally (a friend of my mother's worked for them) that the UK paper
The Sun vetted all articles and allowed no score higher than 6.
later addition to postHave just remembered that it was the Fog Index - and apparently my memory of factors is somewhat confused too. After a quick google, anyone interested try these links:
http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/fog-index.htmlhttp://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/flesch-kincaid-index.html
[u]Gramma[/u]
I went on an excursion through my library, looking for the answer to tsuwm¡¦s question, does gramma = writing, and gramma = small weight mean that there is an actual lexical connection; or is it possible that the term gramma was simply overloaded?
I found the answer in Origins A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English, by Eric Partridge:
gram (1). See GRAIN, para 2.
gram (2), gramme. See GRAMMAR, para 1.
„³ grain ¡K 2. Gram, a plant grown for its seed, drives from Port grao, from L granum.
¡§AHA!¡¨ I thought. I could see how a unit of small weight could derive from a grain, and expected to learn that the weight gram and writing gram were unrelated. But nooooooooo¡K I read further:
„³ grammar ¡K 1. Grammar, the Latin language (C14-16), the general subject (C14 onwards), hence a book of grammar (C16 onwards) derives from late ME gramer, gramere, from OF-MR gramaire (MF-F grammaire) a semi-learned, irreg derivative from L grammatical, trin of Gr grammattke (elliptical for g. tekhne, the art of alphabetical characters, the art of reading and writing), prop the f of grammatikos, skilled in grammar, adj from gramma, a letter of the alphabet, lit something written or for writing, hence also ¡V from the marking ¡V a small weight (whence F gramme, E gram), perh for *graphma, from graphein (s graph-), to scratch or carve, hence write; akin to OE ceofan to notch, nick, cut (whence CARVE, q. v. sep), MHG-G kerben, to notch or nick, MHG kerve, a notch, Lett grebiu, I carve; IE r *gerbh-.
There is, indeed, a lexical connection. Huh.
And while I was tracing the origins of ¡§gram,¡¨ I discovered an interesting connection to ¡§glamour¡¨. From Thereby Hangs a Tale, Charles Earle Funk:
glamour
Until the seventeenth century there was no necessity fo anyone to speak of ¡§Latin grammar,¡¨ because that was the only kind of grammar that was taught. Anyone who knew his ¡§grammar¡¨ necessarily knew Latin. Even in these days [c 1950], among untutored folk, any learned person is regarded with something akin to awe. But in those days, when few men in any community could read or write, one who was so leaned that he could read and speak Latin was believed, by common folks, to possess occult powers, to be capable of witchcraft or of working magic spells. Accordingly, in the speech of England, such a person was said to have gramary, that is, ability to effect charms through a knowledge of grammar. In Scotland he had glamer, a corruption of the same word and with the same meaning. Various Scottish writers, spelling it glamer, glamour, or glamour, used the term in that sense, but it was Sir Walter Scott who explained it and brought it into English usage slightly more than a century ago. Since then we have extended the earlier sense by glorifying the enchantment, though we no longer imply that one possessing glamour is necessarily learned.
There is a similar discussion in Horsefeathers & Other Curious Words, Charles Earle Funk & Charles Earle Funk, Jr.
NOTE: I drafted this in Word, and a cut and paste resulted in the bizarre transformation of some characters. But I'm not gonna retype it all.
Sparteye, someday you'll be a gramma and put out to the south forty where the gramma grass grows.
good detective work,
joe (just north of the south forty) friday
granite (which, when polished, often looks like it is made from little seeds) shares the same root..
and so does the word pomegranite, (pome being a 'form' of apple--and granite from the seeds or 'grains' in side.)
Likewise the country of Granada.
Good work, Spartakiss :)
For glamour and witchcraft, see Terry Pratchett... he wears his learning lightly but!
I do however remember that the key factors counted were:
- number of passive constructions
- average number of words per sentence
- number of words of three or more syllables (as percent of total words, I think)
I was involved in putting together an educational pamphlet for our patients a couple of years ago. Each professional wrote their piece and then it was group edited so that it all fit together. The use of medical and academic jargon is a pet peeve of mine and the committee got so used to my insistance on simplifying the language that they started to refer to a piece as having been Carol-ized.
Wow, that is great, Zed--good for you!
Love,
J
P.S.--Can a verb be an eponym? Could we say her name has been eponized?
She's an epon of mess distraction ;)
Can a verb be an eponym?
"Lynch" comes to mind. Or, of more recent vintage, "bork".
Thank you. And, hey, mav, I think you've got it (yes, I did): she's an eponess, not at epon-hym.
I did some research on this, and found that grammage has been replaced by REAM Density Examination And Recording, a protocol for testing a ream of paper to determine its density, abbreviated ReamDEAR. Yup, Grammage got run over by a ReamDEAR.
And we all know that TEds are properly measured in puns per square inch!