X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1619" "Tue" "18" "February" "1997" "09:59:41" "+1100" "Richard Walker" "Richard.Walker@cs.anu.edu.au" nil "36" "Re: International documents" "^Date:" nil nil "2" nil "International documents" nil nil] nil) Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id AAA27095; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 00:12:40 +0100 (MET) Received: from listserv.gmd.de by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <15.9BA77630@listserv.gmd.de>; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 0:03:18 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 103285 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 00:01:18 +0100 Received: from flash.anu.edu.au (richard@flash.anu.edu.au [150.203.166.27]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.7.6/8.7.4) with ESMTP id AAA00387 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 00:01:15 +0100 (MET) Received: (from richard@localhost) by flash.anu.edu.au (8.8.2/8.8.2) id JAA14327; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:59:41 +1100 (EST) References: Message-ID: <199702172259.JAA14327@flash.anu.edu.au> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:59:41 +1100 From: Richard Walker Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: International documents Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1815 Robin Fairbairns writes: > > The question of what to use as first and second order quotation marks > > seems to be language related: > > In US English (and Swedish), quotes are nested as > > ``And then he said `foo bar', ... '' > > whereas in UK English, it is > > `And then he said ``how bad'', ... ' > > I think. > > I'm not aware of any fixed rule about this: if there is one, it's > certainly not enforced. Agreed. I have seen the former style used in so-called `UK English'. > > * In US English, the number 1e9 is typeset as "one billion", whereas in UK > > English, it is typeset as "one milliard". (After the French revolution, the > > metric system, and the system with "milliard" was invented, and the > > British, as the Swedes, started using that; later the French switched back > > to the original system, the used in the US.) > > I boggle. I've never heard *anyone* use milliard in 50 years of > listening to spoken English (as opposed to USAn, that is ;-). I've > seldom heard it in spoken French, for that matter, but I did at least > know of its existence as a French word... Again, agreed. Milliard has never been in common use in Australia. The new edition of the Oxford English Reference Dictionary says: milliard n. Brit. one thousand million. Now largely superseded by billion. In Australia we used to say `thousand million', but now we say `billion'. This illustrates another problem to be faced. On very few occasions have I known a non-native to get this sort of information right. And being a native is no guarantee of authority either.