Here's the deal, can anyone rationally explain to me why we as "writers" are saddled with the inane rule that says that when I use a number, I must spell it out instead of using, duh a number?
How is Eighteen hundred thirty six, or even eighteen thirtysix, supposed to be better for the reader than 1836? Every time I find myself writing numbers in my book I have to force myself to spell the stuff out, because "that's proper grammar." Why, why why why????
Sorry for the rant but I've never heard any other justification. I may be a geek, but don't numbers make more sense? They are more compact, easier to read, and don't need to be translated. There are just three reasons for using numerals off the top of my head. Can anyone match that number for spelling the @#!$% things out?
Nine and under get written out , 10 and over use the numeric.
The exceptions are:
1) If the number appears at the beginning of a sentence, write it out.
i.e. Ten years ago I went on my first camping trip.
NOT
10 years ago I went on my first camping trip.
2) Numbered lists always use the numeric. Of course, numbered lists are rare in journalism (and should really only be used when the order is important, most lists should be bulleted).
i.e. 1,2,3,4...
NOT
One, Two, Three, Four...
3)Address should use the numeric.
i.e. #7 Cherry Tree Lane
NOT
Number Seven Cherry Tree Lane
Of course, as Christine's thread points out, rules can be broken...
[This message has been edited by Robyn_Hood (edited November 30, 2004).]
my omniscient narrator would ALWAYS spell numbers out, Slicer would ALWAYS use numerics, and Viniece would follow the rules...
what i'm saying is that you convey something when you use numbers in certain ways.
1. If it begins a sentence, write it all out, no matter how big. (Five
hundred and thirty-seven thousand, three hundred and twenty-one years ago...)
2. If it is under three digits write it out. (five, eighty-seven)
3. If it is a three-digit multiple of one hundred, write it out. (one
hundred, four hundred)
3. If it is a power of ten with its own special name, write it out. (one
thousand, one million, one billion...)
4. If it is a number of less than three digits or a three-digit multiple of
one hundred, followed by a power of ten with its own special name, write it
out. (twenty-three billion, two thousand, seven hundred million)
5. If the rules so far haven't covered it, and it is greater than one
million, use digits and a decimal point (if needed) to describe the number in
terms of whatever -illion applies (423 million, 5.7 billion, 999.9 trillion)
6. If the rules haven't covered it yet, use digits. (1001; 22,222;
97,888,625,266)
Under these rules (except #1), I believe you will never have a number written out
that uses more than three words (not including "and") until you get to one hundred thousand vigintillion.
In fiction writing, you usually want the reader to "hear" rather than see numbers. But not always. Sometimes you want both.
quote:
"That'll be fifty-seven twenty-four."May blinked. $57.24 for a machine gun?
quote:
it depends on your viewpoint!my omniscient narrator would ALWAYS spell numbers out, Slicer would ALWAYS use numerics, and Viniece would follow the rules...
what i'm saying is that you convey something when you use numbers in certain ways.
basically, when you spell out numbers on a constant basis, at least to me, you help to add to an air of archaism, when you use numerics on a constant basis, you create a rather fresh, modernized air, and when you follow the rules, well, you create a person who follows rules
Because we're paid per word.
So, it is wrong to say: "There are 6 eggs from four hens that are 2 days older than the first three."
"You want Personal Armaments, Heavy: 5724."
But five thousand eight hundred forty-seven...now that's just awkward no matter what.
[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited December 02, 2004).]