Quick Fire Questions (A Place to Ask and Answer)

[The Judge]

Er... well, I wouldn't say "one hundred foot building" in case people thought it was some kind of centipede...

Although it's commonplace to say "foot" instead of "feet" in those circumstances, strictly it's incorrect. So if you're writing it in dialogue, first person or very close third narrative, you can get away with it; in ordinary narrative I'd go with "feet".


EDIT: pipped to the post!

 

[Vertigo]

Thanks for the responses.

It's interesting; I have dug around a little more and have found a number of online dictionaries saying that the five-foot wall is completely correct (with the hyphen).

In Standard English, foot and feet have their own rules when they are used in combination with numbers to form expressions for units of measure: a four-foot plank, but not a four feet plank; also correct is a plank four feet long (or, less frequently, four foot long).

However that approach doesn't seem to work as well when the number is more than one word.

My actual context is in referring to a mountain, as in:

Ahead lay the final five hundred foot climb to the summit.

If I write:

Ahead lay the final five hundred feet climb to the summit.

To me at least that just sounds wrong when I read it. But maybe that's because I'm so used to the way it is more normally spoken.

 

[Ursa major]

Now you know why I put the weasel words, I'd expect, in my post.


If you want to obey TJ, and use feet, a little rewording may be called for:

Five hundred feet of hard climbing lay between him/her/them and the summit.

I've taken the liberty of using an adjective.

 

[Interference]

I see it's left to me to be the annoying futurist and suggest metres. Sorry.

 

[Ursa major]

I was going to do that, but it didn't help. The metre has been co-opted into English's list of colloquialisms:

Ahead lay the final two-hundred-metre climb to the summit.

 

[Interference]

Ah, but at least the multi-pedal creature-confusion (and its concomitant potential for unconscious humour) would be barred.



So, you mean, even had I waited a bit longer, it would have still have been my distasteful duty to be the annoying one again?

 

[Vertigo]

Yes I 'ummed' and 'arred' a bit about that actually and it wasn't natural to me. The nice thing about feet is they sound more impressive in this context! Saying you have a thousand feet to go or something is a thousand feet below, sounds so much more significant than three hundred metres to go or three hundred metres below. Sad but true. Also I suspect that even now in the UK most people have a better gut feel for what a thousand feet looks like than they do three hundred metres.

In my own climbing and walking I always use metres and kilometres, apart from anything else all British maps are now in kilometres and metres.

 

[Interference]

Hyphenation, in either case, would seem to be a good option, then.

"A hundred-foot climb...."

"The building towered over them, a hundred feet or more...."

"Fifty feet of empty space between me and disaster...."

etc....

 

[Venusian Broon]

It's actually a researched scientific theory, with interesting conclusions:

Believe me there are kids around about where I live that for all their baby-faced looks they will endear absolutely no feelings of trust.

Especially when they start waving guns around at you. Although on the occasion they did that to me they only mugged 80p off me.

So from my practical experience of said youths, I'd have to say I'm inclined not to agree with the research

(But don't let that put you off Hackney though, 99.999% of the time it's a great place!)

 

[Vertigo]

Yes I think that is what I shall do. It's bizarre really how the simplest of things can set their own traps for you!

Ursa I noticed that you added an extra hyphen in your example two-hundred-metre. Is that first hyphen correct? Is it maybe needed because of the hyphen before metre?

 

[Venusian Broon]

Also I suspect that even now in the UK most people have a better gut feel for what a thousand feet looks like than they do three hundred metres.

Actually, what unit of measurements do people use in their writing? Is Imperial your weapon of choice or are you S.I. when describing distances, mass, volume etc...? For example is said tower, 100 feet or approximately 30 metres high?

I'm resolutely S.I., as 1) that is what the Scottish Education system taught in the mid-1970s when I first went to school and 2) Physics in S.I. is so much easier! You would not believe some of the shenanigans you have to take into account to express some equations in non-SI units.

So Vertigo, I'm definitely a counter-example of a UK citizen who always has to convert pounds/inches/feet/miles etc... into Kg and metres before I get a sense of size or weight!

 

[The Judge]

Vertigo, I went and checked in my ODE which usually lists things of this kind but it was silent, so either it thinks the rules are obvious, or it hasn't come across the problem. My Oxford English says this:

There is some uncertainty about when to use the singular form, and when the plural, of nouns of measurement.
1. All nouns of measurement remain in the singular form when compounded with a numeral and used attributively before another noun: A six-foot wall; a three-mile walk; a five-pound note. This rule includes metric measurements.
2. Foot remains in the singular form in expressions such as: I am six foot; she is five foot two. But feet is used where an adjective, or the word inches follows, eg I am six feet tall; she is five feet three inches.

But no explanation or justification is given, so I've no idea why it's making that pronouncement. I know I've read somewhere that although this is what we say, it isn't strictly correct.

If this is narrative, then I'd suggest Ursa's paraphrase is better than a five-hundred-foot climb, anyway.

 

[Vertigo]

And I certainly expect such 'counter-examples' to increase over time.

I think it is a very difficult call in the UK. As more people grow up with SI units they will become more natural. I lived through the transition and even though I do everything (DIY, map reading, etc.) in SI I can still instantly visualise 2 inches much more quickly than 5cm. As someone who has spent his working life involved in engineering of some sort I find it very frustrating that I can't seem to switch the intuitive feel for Imperial units that I was originally brought up with. Also it is certainly not helped by the patchy way we seem to adopt some units in some contexts but not in others. A litre of petrol, a pint of beer etc. And we still doggedly cling to miles and yards on our roads.

Then as far as writing goes you have to consider whether you want the American market. I can promise you that the average American has very little feel for SI units.

Edit: TJ got in whilst I was typing: so isn't it frustrating that something I was sure was a simple question turns out so complicated! Argh!

 

[alchemist]

Actually, what unit of measurements do people use in their writing? Is Imperial your weapon of choice or are you S.I. when describing distances, mass, volume etc...?

My very first post asked this question.

http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/529017-imperial-or-metric.html

The answers went on a bit longer than I expected.

 

[Vertigo]

Sorry for the rapid fire questions but I have just come across another one!

This is with regard to the use of the word 'that'. Now I'm sure this has been discussed before but I baulked at the idea of trying to search the Chrons for 'that'!

I came across this passage from a book on writing which seems inconsistent about its use of the word:

They [ears] detect an awkwardness in sentence structure or a jarring repetition the eyes pass over. Even if you're not exactly sure what's wrong, you hear that something is, and you can tinker...

Good advice I'm sure but it is the grammar I'm interested in here.

I think the first could have been written '...repetition that the eyes pass over...' and the second could have been written '...you hear something is,...'

Now it seems to me that (!!!) those two clauses are using or not using 'that' in exactly the same way. Is there a right or wrong here or just what gives the best rythm to the sentence?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I wouldn't have either of the that's in it, but it's a personal thing. Certainly wouldn't have two.

 

[Vertigo]

So you're saying the use of 'that' in this (what a horrible word to talk about) context is essentially optional. I have often wondered should I put it in or am I being lazy by leaving it out.

 

[Ursa major]

Ursa I noticed that you added an extra hyphen in your example two-hundred-metre. Is that first hyphen correct? Is it maybe needed because of the hyphen before metre?

Probably. Possibly. (You don't really expect me to know the answer to that, do you? )



Actually, the reason I put the hyphen was the following. When I see

Ahead lay the final two hundred-metre climb to the summit

my brain starts expecting an s on the end of climb. Only for the briefest of moments, mind you, but enough to jar slightly. However, when I see

Ahead lay the final two-hundred-metre climb to the summit.

I know exactly what's happening. (True, I may start wondering about the hyphen, but as you may have noticed, I'm not averse to stringing quite a few words together with them; others may find this just as jarring as I find the other version.)

The answer may be to avoid needing any hyphens, as in my original suggestion, which permits the use of an "proper" adjective (in this case, hard), which must be omitted when all those long numbers of foots, feets, metres and metresses are plonked in front of the noun.

 

[Ursa major]

Is there a right or wrong here or just what gives the best rythm to the sentence?

As with all grammar I believe that that that makes us think must be good for us**.

I try to prune as many thats out of my dialogue as I can (except where the character is being playful), and try to keep the number of them in my narrative low. My use of them - my deliberate use of them post editing, not the stuff I first type - tends to increase where what's being described is complicated (and thus needs more precision to make sense).


The easiest way to see which ones work, and which ones don't, is to read the sentences under examination out loud. (So I think you're right about the rhythm.)


** - When we're writing. When we're reading, we don't necessarily want text that calls attention to itself unless, possibly, the writer wants us to see the text rather than (just) the story.

 

[The Judge]

I think the first could have been written '...repetition that the eyes pass over...'

Yes.

and the second could have been written '...you hear something is,...'

Yes, it could, but I wouldn't advise it. Read it out loud and you're searching for a word to come after the "is" to complete the sentence ie "you hear something is wrong". Using the "that" in that second sentence avoids the unfinished feel of it and allows the correct stress to be placed to make sense of the whole.

Now it seems to me that (!!!) those two clauses are using or not using 'that' in exactly the same way.

I don't think they are. I never learned all the technical stuff of relative pronouns and determiners and what-have-yous, but in the first sentence the "that" could be replaced with "which" eg "... repetition which the eyes pass over..." You can't do that in the second sentence -- "you hear which something is" doesn't make sense. And there's no reason to worry about "inconsistency" even if they were used in the same way -- sometimes you need to repeat the "that" and sometimes you don't -- you need to learn to feel the sentence.

Is there a right or wrong here or just what gives the best rythm to the sentence?

According to my ODE, where "that" is introducing a subordinate clause ie "She said [that] she was happy" it can be dropped, but it doesn't have to be. Sometimes it's good to keep it for clarity and/or rhythm. In a sentence like "Any book that begins with a dream is binned" you can't omit it, but you can replace it with "which" if you don't like it.