posted
Maybe I'm picking a fight, or maybe I'm the only one bothered by this, but the illogic, nay stupidity of this "rule" drives me nuts.
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?
posted
I can't remember the reason, and I don't have my style guide handy, but in journalism the rule is:
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).]
posted
I basically do what Robyn_Hood said. I would add that I typically spell out small numbers wherever they appear in a sentence, assuming they appear alone. My twelve-year-old daughter...When I was three...I ordered two hamburgers and some fries. Big numbers I tend to write plainly. On her 300th birthday, Zoie returned home for the first time in nearly 280 years. But even big numbers need to be spell out at the beginning of a sentence. Two hundred years ago....Eight thousand people showed up for...I often rewrite the sentence when I have big, long numbers so that they appear in mid-sentence and I can write them out rather than spelling them out.
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
I have a system I use for non-date, non-address numbers. The system may seem complex, but it is basically putting into rules what I do naturally.
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.
posted
Thanks all for the replies, but except for Survivor, no one has really addressed the root issue. Why spell out numbers at all? Suvivor's response gives a slight clue, but I still don't get it. It may just be me, but a spelled out number (of virtually any length, though longer is worse) takes me longer to process. Numerals exist for a reason, they are much more efficient. And I still "hear" number whether it had been spelled out or not.
Posts: 77 | Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted
okay, i'm going to try to make plainer what i stated previously here:
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
posted
The only reason I know of is tradition. It's the way it always has been, so it's the way it will continue to be. Kind of a pain sometimes, but not worth the effort to fight it, as far as I'm concerned.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Dec 2003
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
