Re: the term "pound sign" (was: help: character to integer)

["W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" <wwgrol@PSESERV3.FW.HAC.COM>]

:> Well I must say that at first it seemed quite credible that this was indeed
:> an old term, but the failure of anyone to come up with other than the most
:> dubious scraps of anecdotal evidence is puzzling ...

So: Feldman's claim that physics teachers used '#' for "pounds" around 1960
is a dubious scrap of anecdotal evidence.

And: Webster's claim made in 1957 that '#' was used for "pounds" in commerce
and business is a dubious scrap of anecdotal evidence.

And: my claim that at least one non-computer-literate secretary used '#'
for "pounds" before 1950 is a dubious scrap of anecdotal evidence.

Now: How do we describe the claim the started this silly argument, to wit:

 >. . . But for example, the symbol for 16#23# which is # in
 >the US version, is the pound stirling symbol in the UK (this is why # on
 >a US touch tone phone is called the pound key).

I suspect "this is why" was merely a case of inadvertent inaccuracy.
(Let he who is without sin...)
But even if he meant it, is it worth a big fight?

I predict that if someone with a better newsreader than I :-) were to put
this question on alt.english.usage the result would be
a hundred dubious scraps of anecdotal evidence, two hundred useless
opinions, and at least ten conclusive quotes from hundred-year-old
dictionaries.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)                                Office: 219-429-4923
Hughes Defense Communications (MS 10-40)                 Home: 219-471-7206
Fort Wayne,  IN   46808                  (Unix): wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------