posted
I've never seen the topic discussed in a style guide. I remember hearing it in math class once or twice, but not in any of my editing classes.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wikipedia seems to agree, for what it's worth, although I can't tell what original reference was used by that author for that claim:
quote:Note that in American English, it is non-standard to use the word and before tens and ones. It is instead used as a verbal delimiter when dealing with compound numbers. Thus, instead of "three hundred and seventy-three", Americans usually say (and write) "three hundred seventy-three". For details, see American and British English differences.
quote:When saying or writing out numbers, the British will typically insert an "and" before the tens and units, as in "one hundred and sixty-two" and "two thousand and three", whereas Americans will typically drop the "and" as in "two thousand three"; however, "two thousand and three" is also common. The same rule applies when saying numbers in their thousands or millions: "four hundred and thirteen thousand" would be said by a British speaker, "four hundred thirteen thousand" by an American speaker.
Some American schools teach students to pronounce decimally written fractions (".5") as though they were longhand fractions ("five tenths"), such as "five hundred thirteen and seven tenths" for 513.7 . This formality is often dropped in common speech. It is steadily disappearing in instruction in more advanced mathematics and science work as well as in international American schools. In the UK, 513.7 would generally be read "five hundred and thirteen point seven", although if it were written 513 7⁄10, it would still be pronounced "five hundred and thirteen and seven tenths").
quote:Originally posted by MEC: Because Ze-ro is a neutral number, not negative or positive. All the other numbers are positive, making it much more sense to have it be sev-en.
And because it is going in the same "direction". Otherwise, "neg-a-tive one" would make as much sense as twen-ty-sev-en.
And, unless I am doing precise math, (which I never am) I always say "and". Maybe I'm British. More likely, I am just old.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I bet the "and" question would be a good one for The Straight Dope.
I'm trying to see if I can access the Chicago Manual of Style online (chapter 13 is [er, perhaps "was" -- prior edition ] all about numbers) or the APA Publication Manual.
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Wikipedia seems to agree, for what it's worth, although I can't tell what original reference was used by that author for that claim.
No offense, but without any sources, I'd say it's not worth much.
I already looked in Chicago and didn't find anything, but that was the fourteenth edition. I don't remember seeing it in the fifteenth edition either, though.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I usually avoid “and” altogether when stating numbers. The only time use it is far stating fractions, for decimals I say “point”.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't style guides about written style? I don't know why a style guide would have anything about how to pronounce "347".
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Wikipedia seems to agree, for what it's worth, although I can't tell what original reference was used by that author for that claim.
No offense, but without any sources, I'd say it's not worth much.
Which is why I noted that explicitly, you see. This saves others from making the same search and makes it clear (to most, I hope) that I did not intend for it to be considered to be "worth much."
I take no offense, and I mean no offense by elaborating in response.
quote:I already looked in Chicago and didn't find anything, but that was the fourteenth edition. I don't remember seeing it in the fifteenth edition either, though.
It is indeed explicitly addressed in the fifteenth edition, at least according to the Chicago Manual of Style online website.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have found the The Chicago Manual of Style's current take on it, which seems to be that it is a matter of personal preference and level of formality:
quote:Numbers
Q. In the admittedly rare circumstances when you want to write out the name of a large number, are there any agreed-upon guidelines for the usage of the word “and”? Is it “six hundred seventy-two” or “six hundred and seventy-two”? I was taught the former in grade school; a colleague was taught the latter, equally adamantly. I should note that said colleague is Canadian; is this perhaps a question of American versus British usage? All consulted manuals are, inexplicably, silent on the matter.
A.As paragraph 9.5 in the fifteenth edition of The Chicago Manual of Style suggests [emphasis added], using and is a matter of personal preference. For many people it is more idiomatic to say “one hundred and ten,” and, therefore, perhaps especially in less formal writing, it can be written that way as well. In some contexts, caution is advisable, however. Look at the following two expressions:
six hundred seventy-two
six hundred and seventy two
The latter expression could possibly be construed as two numbers: 600, on the one hand, and 72, on the other. But in the majority of contexts there would be no reason to worry.
Fascinating.
I am curious as to the APA's take on the subject, if any, and how the various standard mathematical grammar references address the subject, but I am not going to devote much more time to finding out.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just checking the fifteenth edition myself while you posted that, CT. Here's paragraph 9.5 straight from the manual:
quote:Number beginning a sentence. When a number begins a sentence, it is always spelled out. To avoid awkwardness, a sentence should be recast.
quote:One hundred and ten candidates were accepted. (And may be omitted.) or In all, 110 candidates were accepted.
It goes on a bit longer, but it's not relevant. That Q&A was much more helpful. Thanks for digging that up. I wonder why they didn't include more of an explanation in the manual itself.
Oh, and I asked my Canadian coworker too, and she said that she'd never heard that you should always omit the "and." I wonder where exactly the rule came from.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not know. It is one of those things which I was taught as a child, at a time when I did not ask for primary sources (*grin), and I have never questioned it until now.
Of course, this may well have been an idiosyncrasm of that particular teacher. Who knows? I wish the Wikipedia article cited some kind of reference, even just "Mrs. Hodgkins, my fifth grade teacher." Perhaps I could have found an old classmate. ***
But it was satisfying to find at least something about it, even if this is not as conclusive as we might wish. I can tell you true that I won't be correcting anyone about it in the future, given that I scrambled for ages and scraped up piss and diddley (and "personal preference" at that).
-------------------------------------------
***It occurs to me that I should explicitly note that I did not author or correct these Wikipedia webpages, nor have I done so with any such pages. Although what an ingenious (albeit rather tenuous) set-up that could have been. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I wish the Wikipedia article cited some kind of reference, even just "Mrs. Hodgkins, my fifth grade teacher."
Ah, but where did she get it from? I suspect it's fifth-grade teachers all the way down. Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Aren't style guides about written style? I don't know why a style guide would have anything about how to pronounce "347".
Because you can't start a sentence with a numeral.
2 heads are better than one. Two heads are better than one.
The first is incorrect, so you need to know how to write the number in words.
Three hundred and forty seven heads are better than one.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether "and" before tens and ones is right or wrong, I would reiterate that someone saying "one hundred and forty two" for 100.42 would not be understood by anyone, whether in the US or the UK or elsewhere.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In mathematics, this is more of an issue than simply following grammatical rules.
If I were to tell someone to give me the sum of "two hundred and one third" and "three hundred and two thirds" - would the answer be 501 or 503/3?
Without a standardized rule, there is no way to be sure without asking the questioner.
Granted, one might also simply ask the sum of "two hundred point three repeating" and "three hundred point six repeating" - but what if we were talking about sevenths instead of thirds?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Whether "and" before tens and ones is right or wrong, I would reiterate that someone saying "one hundred and forty two" for 100.42 would not be understood by anyone, whether in the US or the UK or elsewhere.
I daresay it would depend on context, as does most everything.
----- [see the post above. See also my clinic, as if one of the staff verbally reported a temperature of "100 and 42," it would most certainly be understood as a digital thermometer having read "100.42 F"] -----
I think that is why Icarus used the phrase "technically incorrect" rather than merely "incorrect" (rightly or wrongly). Hatrack is full of grammar and math geeks and nerds. Take it or leave it, that is not likely to change. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I didn't say anything about anything being unacceptable or wrong, or about taking points off of anybody. A question was posed about which how manyt syllables a number contained, and I provided a technical answer. I can provide you with any number of math textbooks for elementary and middle school students that indicate this pronunciation. Of course, they are published in the United States.
I have less than no interest in trading barbs with Lisa--she who started an entire thread on the topic of whether there should be one or two spaces after a period!--or Jon Boy on the subject.
For what it's worth, I would agree with the person who said seven should be the second number instead of zero. If we're not arbitrarily choosing to work with natural (i.e., "counting") numbers, then there is no logical place to start: perhaps the second number should be "one tenth" or the fourth should be "negative nine." Some sort of arbitrary starting point seems necessary, as well as an arbitrary decision on what kinds of numbers are eligible. The most natural one is the natural numbers, starting with one.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Whether "and" before tens and ones is right or wrong, I would reiterate that someone saying "one hundred and forty two" for 100.42 would not be understood by anyone, whether in the US or the UK or elsewhere.
Because that would not be what anybody has advocated for.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Ah, that would be me. And it was in reference to a technical setting -- which is indeed someone, somewhere -- that is further explained in the edit in my last post.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Whether "and" before tens and ones is right or wrong, I would reiterate that someone saying "one hundred and forty two" for 100.42 would not be understood by anyone, whether in the US or the UK or elsewhere.
Fortunately, no one has suggested that anyone say such. And "one hundred and forty two one-hundreths" would be understood anywhere.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here would be the post I think Lisa referred to:
quote:Originally posted by me, last page
IIRC, there may be a difference between the American usage of "and" and the British usage of "and" in spoken numbers. That is, I think the Brits may actually say (in their standardized numeric vocabulary) "one hundred and forty-two" for "142," whereas I (an American) was always taught that by US standard nomenclature, this would refer to "100.42" instead, with the "and" indicating the insertion of a decimal point.
And why it came to my mine, but would not likely come to yours:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Whether "and" before tens and ones is right or wrong, I would reiterate that someone saying "one hundred and forty two" for 100.42 would not be understood by anyone, whether in the US or the UK or elsewhere.
I daresay it would depend on context, as does most everything.
----- [see the post above. See also my clinic, as if one of the staff verbally reported a temperature of "100 and 42," it would most certainly be understood as a digital thermometer having read "100.42 F"]
[Do we actually talk this way in transmitting numbers where I work? Yes [edited to add: when directly reading off a number, that is].
We also do not use certain abbreviations long considered standard, such as "u" for units or MSO4 for morphine.]---
Edited again to add: I can see it was a very poor example. I like dkw's examples (take your pick) much better!
posted
You weren't, for which I am sure Ic is grateful, as he has stated he no desire to trade them wth you.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting back to the puzzle originally presented, I struggled with the series and arrived at an entirely different pattern. I combined the first two numbers in the series as a single number ("1, 0" becomes "10"), added that number to the third number in the series (10+17), which then yielded the fourth number in the series (27).
Continuing with that pattern, the fifth number in the series is 44 (17+27), and the sixth number in the series is 1,771 (1727+44), etc.
I figured this pattern was all wrong when the ninth number in the series came to 18,160,801 -- which, by the way (in case anyone is interested), I pronounce "Eighteen million and one hundred and sixty and eight hundred and one."
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. I'm inconsistent when it comes to "and". I would pronounce that number "Eighteen million, one hundred and sixty thousand, eight hundred and one."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Klett readings for my cultures A and B were one hundred and forty. The Klett readings for my cultures A and B were one hundred forty. With statement one, there is some ambiguity. Is A 100 and B 40 or are both 140? Writing it out I would of course put the number, but if I were giving a presentation, this would lead to confusion. I found Lisa's thread on how many spaces after a period interesting. I told an English AP teacher and she had never heard of the debate and had been deducting points from students who did one period, so now she is rethinking that policy. So, that thread may have saved someone's grade. Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: In my math class the teacher specifically just made it a point to mark our answers incorrect if we use the word, "and" between digits unless talking about a following fraction or decimal. We are supposed to use hyphens.
(a) How were you writing numbers out as words in a math class?
(b) Your teacher was a pedant. And I don't mean that in a good way (if there is a good way).
A: She out of the blue decided to have us actually write out in words some of our math results. She then devoted about 1/4th of a class period explaining the proper way to write out numbers.
B: Maybe so, she insisted that if we did not know how to properly write them, it followed that we could not orally state them correctly. It was best we fix the problem now. *shrugs*
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
] all about numbers) or the APA Publication Manual.
