Re: OT: coins and currency (was: [Theory] Types of numerals)

On 1/7/06, Tim May <butsuri@...> wrote:
> Is this how the term is generally understood in America?  Because it
> isn't even given as a secondary usage in my dictionary.  The New
> Oxford says "having an elongated and typically rectangular shape / an
> object or flat figure in this shape".
I can't speak for how it's generally understood in America.  The above
was my instant reaction, and seems to jibe with the OP's intent.
Let's see what some American references have to say:

Quoth Mirriam-Webster: "deviating from a square, circular, or
spherical form by elongation in one dimension"

Quoth AHD: "1. Deviating from a square, circular, or spherical form by
being elongated in one direction. [Do I detect some dictonarial
plagiarism at work here?] 2. Having the shape of or resembling a
rectangle or an ellipse. 3. (Botany) Having a somewhat elongated form
with approximately parallel sides: an oblong leaf."

I do believe that the noun "an oblong" usually refers to a ROUGHLY
rectangular item. But  I would not generally refer to an actual
rectangle as "oblong", however; I would just say "rectangular".  I
would likewise refer to an ellipse as "elliptical".   I reserve
"oblong" for figures which are not approximations to either of the
above mathematical constructs.





--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>