Return to "stone" page.

I don't think we need "UK" on stone. This measurement was surely used around the world in various places. I know it was in Australia until about 1972 from memory. Now these measurements are known as "imperial" to differentiate them from "metric".

Also I don't believe it's correct to say that the plural of "stone" is "stone" but rather that it is "invariant".

Also this entry cleary shows a single word which is used as both a "countable noun" and an "uncountable" or "mass noun". I think we need a good way to include such characteristics in word definitions much as we use m and f for languages with genders.

Hippietrail 13:39, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I read "UK" as meaning Commonwealth, as opposed to US. But I agree it may be misleading.
Regarding the plural, I think "stone" truly is the plural for the measurement. If I weigh 140 pounds (plural), I weigh 10 stone (plural). It's when the measurements are used as adjectives that they take the invariant form: a 140 pound man is a 10 stone man.
And I agree it would be nice to have a countable/uncountable indication, but I don't have any good ideas of how to do it at the moment.
-- Ortonmc 16:36, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)


The sack is widely reported on the web as containing 13 tods or quarters, or 26 stone, or 2 weys or weighs of 6.5 tods, etc.

Of course, considering the extreme simplicity of the whole system, it may be that James Edwin Thorold Rogers got it wrong, or that the true definition of sack as 13 stone got lost during the twentieth century, but I consider it more likely that a wiki author made the mistake. I'm afraid that quite a few pages on the web have the same quotation, containing the same error. I attribute this the copying of an initial mistake.

I first took the liberty of changing the quotation, but I realise now I shouldn't have done it without checking first what is really written in that book. Does somebody have access to an actual copy? I doubt that this is found in any library... Ratfox 04:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dramatic developments! The book of James Edwin Thorold Rogers is now available on the web thanks to Google books. The citation is correct. However, the Penny Cyclopaedia, also available on Google books, stated barely 39 years earlier that the sack is equivalent to 13 tods, not stones. Was the Penny Cyclopaedia right? Was James Edwin Thorold Rogers? The first prevailed, but who can tell what is the TRUTH anymore? Watch this space for more. Ratfox 19:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


This term was sent to RFV, and the discussion has been archived at Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2011 or Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2011/more. - -sche (discuss) 05:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Last modified on 1 April 2012, at 05:48