Tim: >> I don't think that's the basis. When I look at ye olde measurements, >> there's one thing that I do notice, the unit sizes are convenient sizes >> to measure things in. The inch is not too big, not too small, quite a >> good base unit for measuring something in. Likewise, with the foot, Dotan Cohen: > I've never tried measuring anything but a CRT monitor in inch, so I > don't know about eyeball measurements. But I'd only buy that arguement > if the ordering were consistent, ie 12 inches to a foot, 12 feet to a > yard, 12 yards to a mile... You're trying to think like the Metric system (sensible), but it's not. It's a case of fitting convenient things together. A yard is similar to the reach of your step, so you can pace measurements out. Three feet fit into it reasonable well, so that's the correlation (convenience). You have a reasonable number of small units that go into a larger unit, that in itself, is used to measure something bigger but with a small count (you're not measuring most things in a hundred whatsits, or a thousand, three hundred, and twenty-four thingamajigs, but just five somethings and three other bits). 20 ozs to the pint, 4 pints to the drunk... ;-) > What have you between the yard and mile, anyway? The various measurements typically used to measure housing allotments, at least (acres, chains, furlongs, rods). All with complex relationships to each other. Thankfully we're a metric country, and I only need to know feet and inches, out of the old system, to deal with people from the older generations. Though, nowadays, there aren't that many of the older generation in the hardware stores, and it's just things like video monitors and equipment racks measured in inches. -- (Currently testing FC5, but still running FC4, if that's important.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
