Does anyone know how the abbrevation "lb" for pound and "oz" for ounce came about as there is clearly no 'l' or 'b' in pound and no 'z' in ounce.

'lb' is the Latin 'libre', meaning pound as in livre or indeed lire. The £ sign is an 'L' incidentally.

'oz' comes from the Latin 'onza'.

Strange that some claim this to be the 'English' system!

One of the strangest abreviations that I saw was one that the Department for Transport used on one of their posters. The poster in question was a German translation of an English poster and the translator concerned translated "kilometres per hour" as "km/St", not "km/h". ("Stunde" = "hour").

Not only is this the incorrect translation (The Germans always use the international symbol "km/h" for "kilometer pro stunde"), but they use the abreviation "St" for "Steur" (or Tax). For example VAT is written MwSt (MehrwertStuer) [I am not sure if my German spellign is correct].

The translation therefor said that German drivers should not exceed 112 kilometers per tax on British roads.

"lbs" "oz" etc-------

LOL, yes and all part of an English "language"-
Speak English- Speak English!!
Those old Roman terms are really worth getting silly over, aren't they?!
My favourite though is the mile - meaning "one thousand". Even the Romans were sensible enough to use a thousand. Took someone to start the trend of lunacy in Britian to change it to a daft figure to work with. Yet still, you all look at the mileage on your cars and ask how many "thousand" miles it's done, not amounts of 12, 16, 3, whatever other nonesense.

That's because, in the context you have used, thousands is used for counting.

"thousands is used for counting"

Strange that, isn't it?

Not so strange that the previous poster did not discern the difference between counting and measuring.

That is because some (ahem) get confused with counting and measuring and bringing back old laws!

Counting is usually [though not always] connected with integer nubmers and measurement with real numbers. For example, when I want to see how far it is between two places in a road atlas, I usually count the squares and knowing that most semi-decent road atlases in Britain have a metric grid, quickly estimate the distance (in km).

Of course, those who are innumerate are unable to appreciate this short cut, and their stubornness in persisting with miles means that most people are aware of this short-cut. (They bring considerable pressure that they bring onto the atlas-makers not to publicise this matter).

I never have a problem reading a map and working out the mileage.

BTW - I noticed J K Rowling's support for imperial (I believe she is a supporter, is she a BWMA patron?) came thru in her latest film with all the kids involved having to kill a "sixty foot snake".

Such abuse eh?

<<
I noticed J K Rowling's support for imperial
>>

Well, Harry Poter is make-believe, isn't he?

Let me inform you that imperial and it's use thereof is very very real indeed.

Hence why you lot come here and b*tch about it! ;)

J K Rowling is an Honourary Member of BWMA.

I didn't think she could put so much imperialism in without being dogmatic about it.

Her inclusion of imperial in the films (cannot speak for the books as I don't read fictional books) was very subtle.

<<
For example, when I want to see how far it is between two places in a road atlas, I usually count the squares and knowing that most semi-decent road atlases in Britain have a metric grid, quickly estimate the distance (in km).
>>

I am unable to see how metric is of benefit here. If the scale was one square to 100 km or one square to 100 miles, how is the km easier to do? Please can someone explain

"Her inclusion of imperial in the films (cannot speak for the books as I don't read fictional books) was very subtle."

She ladens them with imperialism, eg the teacher sets the class an essay to write and says that it must be x inches long.

As a contrast between book and film, consider buying wands in Ollivander's in Philosopher's Stone. In the book version, each candidate wand is accompanied by a commentary of, eg "seven and a half inches long, willow with a hint of ostrich tail feather" etc. In the film version, he just hands each one over in silence.

It seems most of the imperial references have been omitted from the film version.

Bud wrote

<<
I am unable to see how metric is of benefit here. If the scale was one square to 100 km or one square to 100 miles, how is the km easier to do? Please can someone explain
>>

All decent maps in the United Kingdom have a grid on them that is based on the National Grid - a grid that is based on 100km squares and that uses 2 degrees West as its reference longitude.

If you visit www.upmystreet.com and enter a valid UK postcode (for example SW1A 1AA for the HOuses of Parliament) and then select a 1:25000 or a 1:50000 scale map, the grid that you see will be based on the National Grid.

"In the book version, each candidate wand is accompanied by a commentary of, eg "seven and a half inches long, willow with a hint of ostrich tail feather"

It is a well known fact, and one that bookworms are eager to point out, that books tend to get the mind to paint a better picture than films where the picture is painted for you. This extra wordage is to help you conjure that thought. I think than you example if said in metric would look rather odd and over-scientific in context.

BTW: I was informed yesterday that the Harry Potter books are now available in Welsh!

It wouldn't actually be 'odd', but it may sound 'odd' as such descriptions would not often be used. This is simply the cultural position, which is in fact surprisingly easy to change.