That's why I feel and think that all should NOT use the decimal point in the NAME of the round. Because it implies a measurement which is not accurate with the true dimensions of round.
Ahhh! The sweet delusion of "reasoning" by starting with one's
conclusion as one's
premise -- guaranteed to evolve into the desired conclusion. Works every time but isn't logical.
If you want to omit the decimal because it allegedly implies a level of precision that isn't there, then the same "logic" advises that you omit the numbers, too, because they imply precision that is much looser without the decimal, much closer with it. If we don't use the decimal, the numbers are false in their entire implication of precision. The .270 is a lot closer to being 0.270 inch than it is to 270.0 inches.
Implication of precision merely begins with the decimal. It increases with the number of digits to the right of the decimal. So while .270 and .308 are insignificantly misleading (relative to 0.277 inch and 0.3085 inch), their flaw rests in
the third digit,
not in the decimal. The fact remains that
.27 and
.30 provide
far tighter precision than
27, 270, 30 or
308.
Might as well use letters or words. We already have the Ace, the Bee, the Hornet, the Wasp, the Velo-Dog, with no implication of precision whatever -- and no clue of caliber in any of these names. Maybe we should rename the .270 Winchester the ABC Winchester or the 1927 Winchester, or the .30-06 the 1906 Springfield and the .45-70 the 1873 Springfield -- if numbers are acceptable as long as they don't imply a caliber precision that a micrometer doesn't agree with.
What gets me is how the English language can evolve, but who is there to oversee it? There must be SOME rules?
Yes, there are rules inherent to the language. You use the rules in everything you say or write -- else no one could ever understand what you say. You use the rules of the language in your very thinking -- in the formation and mental storage of your thoughts. But how many times does one have to point-out that this isn't a matter of
language before you get it?
Conventions of writing and printing are adjuncts to language, not inherent elements of language. Conventions evolve logically as readers' misunderstandings and intrusive clutter inspire revisions of certain printing conventions -- such as the conventions of printing abbreviations, for example. Thus there are two widely acceptable conventions for printing abbreviations. One, which is sometimes confusing and very often needlessly cluttery, uses a period after the initial letter of each referent word or each truncated word in the abbreviated expression (for example,
e. g., F. B. I., U. S. A., r. p. m., mi./hr.). A neater convention for abbreviations omits the period
except when the result is a word -- ft for
feet but
in. for
inch, and
e g, FBI, USA, rpm, mi/hr but
lb/sq in., for example.
