[Vocabulary] be/have when describing 'how many of sth'

[marker]

Which sentences are correct?


The room has 20 square meters.
The room is 20 square meters large.

The boy has 1.80 m.
The boy is 1.80 m tall.


Thanks for replies in advance .

 

[bhaisahab]

Which sentences are correct?


The room has 20 square meters.
The room is 20 square meters large.

The boy has 1.80 m.
The boy is 1.80 m tall.


Thanks for replies in advance .

The ones with "is".

 

[marker]

The room is 20 square meters large.
The boy is 1.80 m tall.

I can omit 'large' and 'tall' in both of them, can't I?

 

[MikeNewYork]

The room is 20 square meters large.
The boy is 1.80 m tall.

I can omit 'large' and 'tall' in both of them, can't I?

I would delete "large" but would keep "tall".

 

[Rover_KE]

I expect you know that more natural sentences would be

'The area of the room is 20 square meters.'

'The boy's height is 1.8 meters.

 

[5jj]

I expect you know that more natural sentences would be

'The area of the room is 20 square meters.'

'The boy's height is 1.8 meters.

I agree about the first, but I think "The boy is 1 metre 80" is the most natural.

 

[emsr2d2]

In BrE, when we still use feet and inches, the word "tall" is usually omitted.

I'm five foot five.
He's six foot three.
She's 4ft 2.

Some people are gradually moving over to metric measurements for height but it feels quite unnatural for us. On the rare occasions when I find I have to use the metric system for this, I always say "I'm one metre sixty-five tall". I can't explain why I feel the need to put "tall" in the metric version but not in the imperial version.

 

[MikeNewYork]

For me it is because five foot five can only refer to height, but 1.80 meters can refer to things other than height.

 

[5jj]

For me it is because five foot five can only refer to height, but 1.80 meters can refer to things other than height.

I don't see that, I'm afraid.

 

[emsr2d2]

I could be five foot five wide!

 

[MikeNewYork]

Hopefully not! :shock: