[Jedd]

> In the US we don't really use the word tonne.

Yes, that was pretty much the crux of my point. If you did use that spelling, you wouldn't have to disambiguate, and it'd align with popular English-speaking nations that already use metric.

It's a bit like not using the word 'metre' - despite the USA recalcitrantly eschewing the actual measurement - and confusingly re-purposing 'meter' (a device for measuring something).

I mean, sure, they sound the same (refer sibling comment and response) but context can inform in spoken English.

In written English it's dreadfully convenient to have unique strings for unique concepts (or words).

[CydeWeys]

This is just the -re vs -er difference in English spelling between British English and American English, dating back to Webster's reforms in the late 1700s. https://www.learnenglish.de/spelling/spellingrevser.html

Frankly, the -er is better based on actual English pronunciation rules. The -re ending comes from French and is less compatible with how most of the rest of English is pronounced.

And I can't say I've ever been confused by these two different meanings of the word. Can you even come up with an example sentence illustrating ambiguity here?

[Jedd]

Ooh, that first bit suggests you're in danger of suggesting there's a coherent, sensible, set of rules for English ... which I'm sure you don't really subscribe to. Anyone adopting that position as a starting point is going to have a bad day, of course. : )

So, is 'er' better in terms of pronunciation? Perhaps, though I don't think that matters much, as pronunciation varies so wildly based on country, region, education, etc, plus there's so much inconsistency with spelling -> pronunciation within English that I think it's fair to say that ship has long since sailed.

In terms of writing however there's a huge advantage to having words with different meanings have different spellings. I assume I don't have to pitch that idea terribly hard?

For us non-Americans I suspect the frustration boils down to having a recalcitrant nation stubbornly refusing to join the rest of the metric world while simultaneously poisoning the language well of metric unit names everyone else is already using.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

I think you only got down voted here because some fraction of people who identify as US citizens reflexively disagree with anything slightly indicating there are other correct definitions other than their own.

Consider the down votes US Customary Up-Votes.

[kube-system]

'metre' is homonoymic and homographic even in British English.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre_(poetry)

If there's anyone responsible for English words having way too many meanings, it ain't Americans.

[Jedd]

I perhaps wasn't 100% clear.

I'm not suggesting English is a perfect representation of thoughts & concepts into strings of letters & punctuation, or that any one variant has tweaked it to be just right.

I'm complaining that the Rest Of The World has to contend with the dilution of metric terminology (by the regrettable rise of f.e. 'metric ton') that's being perpetrated by a nation state that doesn't even use metric.

[kube-system]

The US uses a lot of metric, just not exclusively. Which is why we'd say 'metric ton' anyway. Otherwise we'd just say 'ton'.

[Jedd]

I feel we are back to where we came in.