"Oh" for "zero"
daniel....@ox.ac.uk
especially when referring to telephone numbers, comes from.
It it American or British? How old is the usage.
Even though I know it is technicaly wrong, I do it myself.
Daan Claassen
Glynis Baguley
> Does anyone know where the usage of saying "oh" for the number 0 (zero),
> especially when referring to telephone numbers, comes from.
> It it American or British? How old is the usage.
Well, this isn't going to surprise you, but it comes from the fact
that the number zero looks just about the same as the letter O. I
suppose there isn't - because we don't often need it - a common
everyday word for the number zero. If someone asked you how many
brothers you had, you'd say `one', or `two', but `none', not `zero' or
`nought'. And people don't live at `number 0, Acacia Avenue'. You only
need to give the number a name in things like telephone numbers.
My office telephone number ends in ... one of those things, and I'd
certainly say `oh' if I were giving someone the number. I think
anything else would sound odd (I'm British, by the way).
> Even though I know it is technicaly wrong, I do it myself.
Like many questions of usage, it's more a question of appropriacy and
context than being technically right or wrong. It might sound wrong to
call 0 `oh' in a maths lesson, but equally wrong to call it `zero' in
a phone number.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{ Glynis....@oucs.ox.ac.uk }
{ Oxford University Computing Services }
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Moore
g...@natcorp.ox.ac.uk "Glynis Baguley" writes:
>Like many questions of usage, it's more a question of appropriacy and
>context than being technically right or wrong. It might sound wrong to
>call 0 `oh' in a maths lesson, but equally wrong to call it `zero' in
>a phone number.
I prefer "zero" when giving telephone numbers over the telephone,
because redundancy usually improves accuracy. Unfortunately I
don't always remember to do it "wrong".
--
Ken Moore (K...@hpsl.demon.co.uk)
Mark Odegard
writes:
>
>In article <1995Feb24.1...@onionsnatcorp.ox.ac.uk>
> g...@natcorp.ox.ac.uk "Glynis Baguley" writes:
>
>> Like many questions of usage, it's more a question of appropriacy and
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> context than being technically right or wrong. It might sound wrong
to
>> call 0 `oh' in a maths lesson, but equally wrong to call it `zero' in
>> a phone number.
>
>I can't believe you said that! Isn't the word "appropriateness"? I
know
>that you've got this great project there for a complete concordance of
>British English, but is this usage of yours now going to get in there?
I beg
>of you, tell me that it's not _already_ there!
>
>BTW, refresh my memory: what is that project called?
>
I've been looking at the header on my reader for a bit, wondering what
the hell "appropriacy" meant. We have appropriateness, appropriation,
but I've never heard of appropriacy.
It *could* be a word though. As far as I know, though, it isn't.
Richard Treitel
|> Does anyone know where the usage of saying "oh" for the number 0 (zero),
|> especially when referring to telephone numbers, comes from.
|>
I've heard of it having unfortunate consequences when combined with
the habit of mapping between the Roman alphabet (minus Q and Z) and
the numbers 2-9 by way of the letters on the keys of (American)
phones. There was once a little old lady who, when told to dial
something like "three four oh seven", punched the 3 key, the 4 key,
looked for the letter O, found it on the 6 key and punched that, then
punched the 7 key.
-- Richard was once a keypunch operator (not)
(If my employer holds these views, it hasn't told me.)
Michael B. Quinion
>
> I prefer "zero" when giving telephone numbers over the telephone,
> because redundancy usually improves accuracy. Unfortunately I
> don't always remember to do it "wrong".
Here in the UK, I once called a British Telecom operator and used
'zero' ... she became quite confused and said rather sharply, 'what's
all this "zero" business?'. Follow the crowd, stick with 'oh', it's
less likely to confuse!
--
Michael B. Quinion
chab...@vms1.bham.ac.uk
>
> I prefer "zero" when giving telephone numbers over the telephone,
> because redundancy usually improves accuracy.
Me 'n all.
Listening in to aircraft bands, I have noticed that they seem to pronounce
`zero' as `sero'. I had initially assumed that I was hearing an artefact
of limited bandwidth radio, but I have since heard an SSB user (when I was
next to him) pronouncing it in the same way.
Any ideas ?
Tony Chabot
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
swa...@primenet.com "John R. Swaney" writes:
> Certainly, it's not limited to telephone numbers. Americans will speak
> an
> address as "one-oh-seven Main Street," or refer to "apartment two-oh-six," or
> express a price in dollars and cents as "twenty-one-oh-five."
> Having lived in the U.K. at one time, I'm accustomed to hearing
> Britishers
> speak an address as "one-hundred-seven Main Street," or "apartment
> two-hundred-six," etc.
NO! We say "one-hundred-AND-seven", "two-hundred-and-six". We'll even
extend this beyond the first decade, up to "one-hundred-and-ninety-nine",
and we don't stop there either!
The usage without the conjunction really grates when I hear American
newscasters, weather forecasters, etc.
> Brits seem much more likely to use the word "nought"
> (or is it "naught") where Americans would say "zero" or "oh."
> And, of course, Americans speak a sports score as "the Yankees won,
> four to nothing," while the British will say, "four-nil."
Agreed.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
Dragonhill Systems Ltd Faringdon (+44 1367) 242363 (Fax & Answerphone)
Bramble Passage, 20 Coxwell Street, FARINGDON, Oxon, SN7 7HA, United Kingdom
Geoffrey Watson
>In article <DAAN.95Fe...@rodan.eng> daniel....@ox.ac.uk writes:
>>Daan Claassen
> I've always assumed (but I'm not sure why) that the practice is American,
>perhaps picked up by the British from so much exposure to U.S. movies, t.v.,
>etc.
> Certainly, it's not limited to telephone numbers. Americans will speak an
>address as "one-oh-seven Main Street," or refer to "apartment two-oh-six," or
>express a price in dollars and cents as "twenty-one-oh-five."
> Having lived in the U.K. at one time, I'm accustomed to hearing Britishers
>speak an address as "one-hundred-seven Main Street," or "apartment
>two-hundred-six," etc. Brits seem much more likely to use the word "nought"
>(or is it "naught") where Americans would say "zero" or "oh."
> And, of course, Americans speak a sports score as "the Yankees won,
>four to nothing," while the British will say, "four-nil."
>John Swaney
>Los Angeles
For purely British usage try:
Bond double-oh seven
Or the toy train gauge as in:
Hornby double-oh
(I *think* these latter were numbers)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoffrey Watson gw...@cs.uq.oz.au
Mark Brader
> It might sound wrong to call 0 `oh' in a maths lesson,
> but equally wrong to call it `zero' in a phone number.
On the other hand, when I was young, I learned that phone numbers are
one place where you *never* say "oh" for "zero". In those days phone
numbers in North America were still generally written with letters for
the first two digits (e.g. OX1-2345 for 691-2345); and as everyone here
knows, the letter O corresponds to the digit 6 on our phones, not 0.
To this day I still try to use "zero" in phone numbers (except when there
are two or three trailing zeros, which become "hundred" or "thousand"),
but I often slip and use "oh" instead. However, when dealing with North
American *area codes*, I find that I always used "oh". Area codes have
never been written with letters, and until this year, always had 0 or 1
as the second digit; and brevity wins.
In North American telephone usage, the code that you dial before the area
code to request a long-distance or out-of-area-code call is the "access
code". Most other countries consider this as part of the area code;
the British consider that they have area codes which all start with 0,
only you don't dial the 0 when dialing into Britain from outside; but
North Americans would consider the 0 as an access code and not part of
the area code.
We have always had to treat the access code separately here. Until
fairly recently it varied from place to place (some areas had no access
code, some used 1, and I remember when some places used 112); and today,
there are two different access codes, 1 and 0, where 1 means you're
billing the call to the phone you're calling from (or paying in coins
at a pay phone), and 0 means you're not (collect, credit card, etc.).
(Other countries generally have no equivalent to the North American 0
access code, but go through the operator.)
Anyway, the point is that when speaking of an *access code* of 0,
I always call it zero, probably because it was called "zero-plus
dialing" when I first heard of it. So if I'm telling someone that they
need to dial 0-201-304-5000, for example, I will pronounce it as
either: "zero, two oh one, three oh four, five thousand" or "zero,
two oh one, three zero four, five thousand." Sheesh!
--
Mark Brader "I can direct dial today a man my parents warred with.
m...@sq.com They wanted to kill him, I want to sell software to him."
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto -- Brad Templeton
This article is in the public domain.
Daniel S. Barclay
> ...
> somewhat like the australian "r" phenomenon. I'm constantly hearing this new
> @#$%@$%@ "rezources" pronunciation (the last time, from a Duke University
Ewww. <shiver> Yuk.
Daniel
--
Daniel S. Barclay Compass Design Automation, Inc.
dan...@compass-da.com Suite 101, 5457 Twin Knolls Rd. Columbia, MD 21045 USA
"They listen hard, and act like they care.
How can they be so completely unaware
Of the truth? The answer is always denied me
So I introduce 'em to the killer inside me." - MC 900 Ft. Jesus
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
tr...@lunemere.com "Truly Donovan" writes:
> Another member of the
> same group says "parzer" when he's talking about the program that deconstructs
> a data stream. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEugh!
What's wrong with that? I've heard that pronunciation, and no other,
throughout my 32 years working with computers. Moreover, at school we
used to refer to "parzing" sentences (nobody teaches grammar nowadays, so
they learn nothing of analysis nor synthesis).
One could hardly call the program a "passer"; after all, if it's doing
its job properly, it's just as likely to fail its data :-)
Ken Moore
>You mean there's more than one person saying "rezources" and after I shoot
>the one I work with I'm going to come across it again? Another member of the
>same group says "parzer" when he's talking about the program that deconstructs
>a data stream. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEugh!
Before this thread was raised I would have said about 25 million of us
(the other 25 million probably never use the word at all). I shall
listen for "ressource"ful speakers and try to estimate the proportion
each way in the UK.
--
Ken Moore (K...@hpsl.demon.co.uk)
Robert Craig Harman
>tr...@lunemere.com "Truly Donovan" writes:
>>Another member of the same group says "parzer" when he's talking about the
>>program that deconstructs a data stream. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEugh!
>What's wrong with that? I've heard that pronunciation, and no other,
>throughout my 32 years working with computers. Moreover, at school we
>used to refer to "parzing" sentences (nobody teaches grammar nowadays, so
>they learn nothing of analysis nor synthesis).
>One could hardly call the program a "passer"; after all, if it's doing
>its job properly, it's just as likely to fail its data :-)
I'll second Brian here. The etymology of "parse" is Latin, "pars orationis"
("part of speech"). The "pars" could arguably be pronounced either as "parS"
or "parZ". The verb is correct in either form, and I would suppose that
either pronunciation "parSer" or "parZer" could be used for the noun.
Robert Craig Harman
Master's Candidate
Dept. of Chemical Engineering, BYU
K. Edgcombe
I'm sorry it makes Truly feel so ill; what a good thing she didn't
guess this awful truth about so many of us earlier. Will you ever
speak to us (post to us) again?
How do readers of this group pronounce the word "crescent"? I was
brought up in one (not Mornington, before you ask - sorry - UK in-joke)
and always said "crezzent". I recently had occasion to sing about
one (well, a crescent moon, actually) and my fellow-musicians were
very amused and said it was always "cressent". They were as
English as I am. What do others say?
Truly Donovan
>In article <truly.104...@lunemere.com>
> tr...@lunemere.com "Truly Donovan" writes:
>>You mean there's more than one person saying "rezources" and after I shoot
>>the one I work with I'm going to come across it again? Another member of the
>>same group says "parzer" when he's talking about the program that deconstructs
>>a data stream. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEugh!
>Before this thread was raised I would have said about 25 million of us
>(the other 25 million probably never use the word at all). I shall
>listen for "ressource"ful speakers and try to estimate the proportion
>each way in the UK.
Live and learn. I suspect that the reason I didn't know that this
pronunciation was common in the UK is that the many UKers that I have worked
with over the years probably had their speech patterns influenced by our
common corporate culture. However, the parties in question aren't among that
particular 25 million.
Truly Donovan
Glynis Baguley
> I've been looking at the header on my reader for a bit, wondering what
> the hell "appropriacy" meant. We have appropriateness, appropriation,
> but I've never heard of appropriacy.
>
> It *could* be a word though. As far as I know, though, it isn't.
You obviously missed my reply to Brian Kelly, in which I quoted the
definition from Collins English Dictionary. The word is certainly
current in linguistic/TEFL circles.
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
ke...@cus.cam.ac.uk "K. Edgcombe" writes:
> How do readers of this group pronounce the word "crescent"? I was
> brought up in one (not Mornington, before you ask - sorry - UK in-joke)
> and always said "crezzent". I recently had occasion to sing about
> one (well, a crescent moon, actually) and my fellow-musicians were
> very amused and said it was always "cressent". They were as
> English as I am. What do others say?
I'd go along with you; I've never heard the spluttering sibilants of
"cressent" voiced anywhere. I did once hear someone going all romantic
(language-wise) saying "creshent", but she may have been pished :-)
Ken Moore
ke...@cus.cam.ac.uk "K. Edgcombe" writes:
>How do readers of this group pronounce the word "crescent"? I was
>brought up in one (not Mornington, before you ask - sorry - UK in-joke)
>and always said "crezzent". I recently had occasion to sing about
>one (well, a crescent moon, actually) and my fellow-musicians were
>very amused and said it was always "cressent". They were as
>English as I am. What do others say?
"Cressent" where I come from (Devon). Is this a north/south
difference? I had a friend from the North (Manchester I think) who
said "a-zeah" for "Asia". I say "a-shah". Lots of things change
rapidly near the line joining the Bristol Channel to the Wash.
--
Ken Moore (K...@hpsl.demon.co.uk)
Truly Donovan
>In article <mikeq.46...@primenet.com>, Michael Quinlan wrote
>>When I took typing classes (pre-computer), the standard typewriter did
>>not have keys for zero or one; we used O and l (ell).
>You can see that some typists still do this even when using word-processors
>or computers with a 1 key; the text gets printed in a font which enables
>you to see the typo of l for 1 (for example l995 for 1995).
>>I suspect the phone
>>usage of O for Operator is the key though, since nobody says ell for one.
>That might be one reason, but it's not the only one. Some people call the
>year 1908 "nineteen o eight". Some say "nineteen eight", but I hear the "o"
>version more often. There is no need for a similar dodge for the digit 1,
>and "one" is not much harder to say than "ell", so there's no need for
>anyone to say "ell" for 1.
>When zero is in a digit string pronounced digit by digit, I usually hear it
>called "o" . For example 707 (as in Boeing 707) is "seven o seven". And a 0
>in a postcode (when it's not part of a 2-digit number) gets called "o",
>which is unfortunate, because there are letters in a postcode. Now,
>Americans, how is "0" pronounced in a zip code?
I have two of them in mine, and they are both pronounced "oh" (well, I've been
known to call one of zeroes in my phone number "oh" in the same telling where
I call the other one "zero" so it *is* relevant that both of the zeroes in
the zip code are "ohs").
Truly Donovan
Richard Sabey
krista stockebrand
> called "o" . For example 707 (as in Boeing 707) is "seven o seven". And a 0
> in a postcode (when it's not part of a 2-digit number) gets called "o",
> which is unfortunate, because there are letters in a postcode. Now,
> Americans, how is "0" pronounced in a zip code?
My ZIP is 53705. I always say "five three seven zero five." But I'm also a
"zero is a zero and not an o" person. Many ZIPS 'round here have zeros in
them, and almost everyone says o--five three seven oh five.
A ZIP like 90001 would probably be: "nine triple oh one." And a ZIP like
90021 would be "nine double oh two one."
Krista Stockebrand
kjst...@facstaff.wisc.edu
Madison, WI
Michael Quinlan
>When zero is in a digit string pronounced digit by digit, I usually hear it
>called "o" . For example 707 (as in Boeing 707) is "seven o seven". And a 0
>in a postcode (when it's not part of a 2-digit number) gets called "o",
>which is unfortunate, because there are letters in a postcode. Now,
>Americans, how is "0" pronounced in a zip code?
Eight three seven "oh" four. For me anyway. You seem to be right.
+---------------------------------+
| Michael Quinlan |
| mi...@primenet.com |
| http://www.primenet.com/~mikeq/ |
+---------------------------------+
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
g...@natcorp.ox.ac.uk "Glynis Baguley" writes:
> You obviously missed my reply to Brian Kelly, in which I quoted the
> definition from Collins English Dictionary. The word is certainly
> current in linguistic/TEFL circles.
Just on a point of order, Madam Chairman, my surname is Hamilton Kelly:
two words ("double-barrelled") but without a hyphen (which is an
invention of parvenu Victorian mill-owners, marrying their money into the
aristocracy).
To prevent misunderstandings, I always enclose the two words in braces,
`a la \TeX, to make the grouping obvious. If you (or anyone else) don't
want to write out this long surname in full whenever you refer to me, I
shan't be at all offended if you call me "Brian HK".
Luke Stevens
that made sense because 0 and O look the same, and if you're dictating there's
no problem. I prefer and occasionally hear "nil" since it is monosyllabic and
won't be mistaken for a letter; the British seems to use "naught" in this
case, but doesn't work well in America because it sounds just like "not".
You know how we say "ninety five" to mean '95? What shall we say in 2000?
What about the subsequent years? I mean we could say out the whole number,
like "nineteen ninety five" or "two thousand" but how do you say '00?
-- ste...@pss.fit.edu -- .sig under construction
Eliot Gelwan
ks: - > When zero is in a digit string pronounced digit by digit, I
ks: - usually hear it
ks: - > called "o" . For example 707 (as in Boeing 707) is "seven o
ks: - seven". And a 0
ks: - > in a postcode (when it's not part of a 2-digit number) gets
ks: - called "o",
Another place this is commonly done is in phone numbers. For example, I
usually give mine as "seven-three-eight-four-oh-one-eight". Is this more
common in the US than the UK?
...eliot [eliot....@channel1.com]
-----------------------
*** 4:45PM on 03/04/95 at: ***
*** Eighty-Two Perry Street ***
*** Brookline MA 02146-6907 ***
*** voice/fax: 617.738.4018 ***
...
...via CMPQwk ( ver. 1.42-20, no. 1082 )
Daniel Valentine
: You know how we say "ninety five" to mean '95? What shall we say in 2000?
: What about the subsequent years? I mean we could say out the whole number,
: like "nineteen ninety five" or "two thousand" but how do you say '00?
I've been looking forward to using aught for years. I guess I'll say
double-aught, as they do for buck shot.
Dan Valentine
d...@max.tiac.net
Joshua Putnam
Luke Stevens <ste...@galileo.pss.fit.edu> wrote:
>What about the subsequent years? I mean we could say out the whole number,
>like "nineteen ninety five" or "two thousand" but how do you say '00?
In novels of the turn of the last century, I've seen "aught zero"
and "double aught," though neither of these sounds like something
anyone would use today.
--
Joshua Putnam
jpu...@eskimo.com
P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013-0220
Alan J Flavell
haye...@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes) writes:
>Is it technically wrong?
>
>Zero is American usage. British usage is nought (or oh - or is oh just Sow
>Theffricun?)
The use of "Oh" for the digit zero in a telephone number is of long
standing in Britain, and is still considered correct (the electronic
voice "digital dorothy" that reads out telephone numbers to callers
certainly uses it).
"Zero" is the approved usage in the military, police etc. following
NATO standards, and some people use it in more everyday contexts -
but the NATO standards also say "Niner", and pronounce Five as
"Fife", to minimise the likelihood of being mis-heard, something
which the common public would not do.
Yes, you're correct - in common parlance the digit 0 is called
a "nought". (Cf. "naught", that which my best made plans seem
to come to ;-).
Back in the days when telephones had GPO approved letters on the
dials, the letter O was on the digit 0. Later, the letters were
withdrawn, and nowadays (when telephones might come from just about
any country in the world), if the dial carries letters one cannot
rely on just where they might be!
This is the wrong forum to debate that - so I'll close there.
Stuart Burnfield
John R. Swaney <swa...@primenet.com> wrote:
(snip...)
> Having lived in the U.K. at one time, I'm accustomed to hearing Brit-
>ishers speak an address as "one-hundred-seven Main Street," or "apartment
(Clambers on to ducking stool) Never! No Briton (or Australian or New
Zealander) would omit the word 'and' after the hundred. Not sure about
Canadians, South Africans, etc.
Are there any parts of the U.S. where it would be common to say "one-hundred-
and-seven"?
--
Stuart Burnfield I don't plant taters, I don't pick cotton.
Voice: +61 9 328 8288 I'm a technical writer.
PO Box 192 Leederville
Western Australia 6903
Molly Tomlinson
>and-seven"?
Can't speak for most of the place, but growing up in New England (specifically Maine) I can't really get used to hearing it any other way...
-M
Bob Cunningham
In a previous article, FLA...@cernvm.cern.ch (Alan J Flavell) says:
[...]
Many years ago there was a little wordplay gag in circulation
that illustrated some of the interchangeable words for the empty
place on the abacus: It had to do with a man who ordered soup in
a restaurant but found a fly in it. Without tasting it he told
the proprietor he didn't want it. The proprietor told him he had
to pay for it anyway. The customer replied "1OO2O418O".
Converting the numerics to words, he said, "I aught naught two owe
four I eight nothing."
Incidentally, "aught" for "zero" is another example of the
peripatetic "n". RHUD2 says that it comes from mistakenly taking
"a naught" to be "an aught".
Bob Cunningham
Northridge, California, USofA
te...@delphi.com
>Are there any parts of the U.S. where it would be common to say "one-hundred-
>and-seven"?
Daniel P. B. Smith
I think it is the commonest way to say it. I was taught in school
(fifties, New York State) to say it as "one hundred seven" but soon
reverted to "one hundred AND seven."
Lyrics to South Pacific: "A hundred and one pounds of fun, That's
my little honey bun..."
Disney television cartoon: "I'm no fool, no sirree, I'm gonna live
to be a hundred and three, I play safe for you and me 'cause I'm no fool."
Counting seconds: I've always heard it as "one thousand and one, one thousand
and two, one thousand and three..."
Frank Sinatra song: "And if you could survive to a hundred and five,
Think of all you'd derive out of being alive"
--
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbs...@world.std.com
Charlie Mitchell
>When zero is in a digit string pronounced digit by digit, I usually hear it
>called "o" . For example 707 (as in Boeing 707) is "seven o seven". And a 0
>in a postcode (when it's not part of a 2-digit number) gets called "o",
>which is unfortunate, because there are letters in a postcode. Now,
>Americans, how is "0" pronounced in a zip code?
>
code. Generally it's pronounced 'o', although there's no reason why
you couldn't say 'zero', even though doing so wouldn't add any clarity
to what is already perfectly clear.
My zip code, for instance, is 'one, oh, oh, one, four'. In
this case I might occasionally say 'zero zero' because there's a
slight awkwardness in saying 'oh, oh'.
Charlie
Dov Barak
>extend this beyond the first decade, up to "one-hundred-and-ninety-nine",
>and we don't stop there either!
>
>The usage without the conjunction really grates when I hear American
>newscasters, weather forecasters, etc.
DO NOT use AND for 107 (one-hundred-AND-seven) the AND refers to the
decimal point as in 107.23
(one-hundred-seven-AND-twenty-three-one-hundreths)
----------------------
Not speaking for Intel
----------------------
Danielle Provencher (MCOM)
technically correct, I'd like to share an anecdote on the subject. Many
moons go, in fourth grade, our class was having a "multiplication bee"
using flashcards. Two people at a time had to compete to be the first to
answer a problem. Well, it came to me and my "challenger." The problem
was 4 x 0 (or something times zero), and I yell out, "Oh!" The other girl
said, "Zero!" My answer came out first (it was only one syllable, and I
admit, I have a big mouth anyway), but the other girl had a hissy fit,
because I didn't say, "Zero," but, "Oh." So, we played another round and
this time I won fair and square. :)
Danielle
Alan J Flavell
r...@dmu.ac.uk (Robert Thurstans) writes:
> Those of us who still use the "sh" sound are a
>dieing breed.
Any particular colour?
Tony Pritchard
Dov Barak <dba...@F8ACC1.JER.INTEL.COM> wrote:
>
> DO NOT use AND for 107 (one-hundred-AND-seven) the AND refers to the
> decimal point as in 107.23
> (one-hundred-seven-AND-twenty-three-one-hundreths)
>
NO WAY!
107.23 is "one oh seven point two three" (or one hundred and seven point
two three).
The curious mix of decimals and fractions above would bring only
blank stares in this part of the world at least. Is it a new invention, or
have we stumbled upon an undocumented Americism?
Tony Pritchard
Lower Hutt, New Zealand
J. Kivi Shapiro
Tony Pritchard <to...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>In article <3jkbgg$l...@ilx018.iil.intel.com>,
>Dov Barak <dba...@F8ACC1.JER.INTEL.COM> wrote:
>>
>> DO NOT use AND for 107 (one-hundred-AND-seven) the AND refers to the
>> decimal point as in 107.23
>> (one-hundred-seven-AND-twenty-three-one-hundreths)
>
>two three).
>
>The curious mix of decimals and fractions above would bring only
>blank stares in this part of the world at least. Is it a new invention, or
>have we stumbled upon an undocumented Americism?
Mix of decimals and fractions? No, just an alternate way of expressing
a number, kind of like referring to 7.4 as "seven and two-fifths".
But then, Dov isn't strictly right either. The "and" actually refers
to the presence of a fractional part, though the concept is similar to
that represented by a decimal point. (And "hundreths" is a typo for
"hundredths", I imagine.)
The rule Tony is following, unless I miss my mark, is to insert an
"and" before the hundreds place, before the hundred thousands place,
and so on, so
"123,456,789"
would be pronounced as
"one hundred and twenty-three million, four hundred and fifty-six
thousand, seven hundred and eighty-nine",
instead of
"one hundred twenty-three million, four hundred fifty-six thousand,
seven hundred eighty-nine".
The construction creates a problem when fractions are involved,
though. As an example, consider "500 39/540" vs. "539/540". Inserting
the extra "and" when pronouncing the second number yields ambiguity!
Well, maybe not, since the inserted "and"s aren't stressed as much as
the one that belongs (I hear a d in the one that belongs, but not the
other), and there is a subtle difference in intonation.
I guess it's a choice you have to make: either potentially be
misunderstood, or try to wrap your mouth around constructions like "six
hundred thirteen" instead of the more mellifluous "six hundred and
thirteen".
Mathematically and linguistically, of course, there's nothing wrong
with saying "six hundred and thirteen": it's exactly the same
construction as "three hundred sixty-five and two hundred
forty-eight".
- Kivi
--
ksha...@julian.uwo.ca (Kivi Shapiro)
Graduate School of Library and Information Science
This message is in the public domain.
Tony Pritchard
J. Kivi Shapiro <ksha...@julian.uwo.ca> wrote:
> In article <D5IDy...@actrix.gen.nz>,
> Tony Pritchard <to...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> >In article <3jkbgg$l...@ilx018.iil.intel.com>,
> >Dov Barak <dba...@F8ACC1.JER.INTEL.COM> wrote:
> >>
> >> DO NOT use AND for 107 (one-hundred-AND-seven) the AND refers to the
> >> decimal point as in 107.23
> >> (one-hundred-seven-AND-twenty-three-one-hundreths)
> >
> >107.23 is "one oh seven point two three" (or one hundred and seven point
> >two three).
> >
> >The curious mix of decimals and fractions above would bring only
> >blank stares in this part of the world at least. Is it a new invention, or
> >have we stumbled upon an undocumented Americism?
>
> Mix of decimals and fractions? No, just an alternate way of expressing
> a number, kind of like referring to 7.4 as "seven and two-fifths".
>
not just read what is there. Converting it to an alternative (alternate??)
form seems rather perverse and unnecessary, and results in a very
strange-sounding expression that I would find difficult to interpret.
The reason I thought it might be an Americanism is that non-metric
measurements are still in widespread use in that country, and could
require a greater use of fractions than elsewhere in the world.
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
to...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz "Tony Pritchard" writes:
> In article <3jkbgg$l...@ilx018.iil.intel.com>,
> Dov Barak <dba...@F8ACC1.JER.INTEL.COM> wrote:
> >
> > DO NOT use AND for 107 (one-hundred-AND-seven) the AND refers to the
> > decimal point as in 107.23
> > (one-hundred-seven-AND-twenty-three-one-hundreths)
> >
>
> NO WAY!
>
> 107.23 is "one oh seven point two three" (or one hundred and seven point
> two three).
Or, if we're being _really_ precise, as, for example, on RT, we'd say
"wun seero sev-hen decimal too thu-ree"
> The curious mix of decimals and fractions above would bring only
> blank stares in this part of the world at least. Is it a new invention, or
> have we stumbled upon an undocumented Americism?
I think you'll find the gentleman was Israeli... (Intel in Jerusalem)
P. K. W. Tan (Dr)
:
: My zip code, for instance, is 'one, oh, oh, one, four'. In
: this case I might occasionally say 'zero zero' because there's a
: slight awkwardness in saying 'oh, oh'.
Would you never say: one double oh one four
or one hundred one four?
The Singapore postcode (at present) is a four-digit one,
and this generally gets split up into two twos (like the
year 1988 = nineteen eighty-eight). Hence,
1128 = eleven twenty-eight
1027 = ten twenty-seven
Do Australians to they same?
The Malaysian postcode is a five-digit one put before the
name of the city (like the French postcode), and for some
reason or other many end with double 0's, and so frequently
also get called `something or other hundred', e.g.
59100 Kuala Lumpur = five nine one hundred Kuala Lumpur
P. T.
)
FLA...@cernvm.cern.ch (Alan J Flavell)
WROTE RE: "Re: "Oh" for "zero"":
AF> Would you read 3.14159 as "three and fourteen thousand one hundred
AF> fifty nine? I hope not.
English is not my first language, but I would read it "pi".
Or is it "pee" in English? ;-)
Regards
Stephan Grossien,
Hamburg, Germany
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SENDER: HOO...@CLI.SHNET.ORG <Stephan Grossien>
Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.
Alan J Flavell
wd...@techcenter.paccar.com (Wolf Lahti) writes:
>If you want to be pedantic about it (and I rarely pass up an opportunity
>to do so), 107.23 would be expressed one hundred seven and twenty-three.
You astonish me. While we British are well aware of the US convention
of omitting the "and" after the "hundred" in this context, and quite
able to adjust to it when we hear it, the idea of reading a number with
a decimal point and following digits as "and twenty three" rather than
"point two three" would strike us as plain wrong.
Would you read 3.14159 as "three and fourteen thousand one hundred
>accepted and perfectly clear, would now likely cause confusion (even
>though the "longhand" form of check writing is done this way).
Ah, you are referring to "cheque writing". But the numbers on
cheques are sums of money, and sums of money have their own rules
of expression. If that 107.23 were intended as a sum of money, the
British oral usage would be "one hundred and seven pounds twenty three"
and the cheque's "amount in words" would be written "one hundred and
seven pounds 23".
Anyway, my main point was that sums of money are treated differently
from numbers containing decimal fractions.
regards
Edward Hopkins
|> In article <D5IDy...@actrix.gen.nz>
|> to...@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz "Tony Pritchard" writes:
|>
|> > In article <3jkbgg$l...@ilx018.iil.intel.com>,
|> > Dov Barak <dba...@F8ACC1.JER.INTEL.COM> wrote:
|> > >
|> > > DO NOT use AND for 107 (one-hundred-AND-seven) the AND refers to the
|> > > decimal point as in 107.23
|> > > (one-hundred-seven-AND-twenty-three-one-hundreths)
|> >
|> > NO WAY!
|> >
|> > 107.23 is "one oh seven point two three" (or one hundred and seven point
|> > two three).
|>
|> Or, if we're being _really_ precise, as, for example, on RT, we'd say
|> "wun seero sev-hen decimal too thu-ree"
|>
|> > The curious mix of decimals and fractions above would bring only
|> > blank stares in this part of the world at least. Is it a new invention, or
|> > have we stumbled upon an undocumented Americism?
|>
|> I think you'll find the gentleman was Israeli... (Intel in Jerusalem)
I'm assuming that the "curious mix of decimals and fractions above" is
the "one-hundred-seven-AND-twenty-three-one-hundreths". I was taught
to use such a construction (without the hyphens) when I learned to
write checks (in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA). On American checks
there's a small box for writing the amount in Aribic numerals, with a
"$" pre-printed on the left, and a long line for the same amount to
be written out, with "dollars" preprinted on the right. So if I'm
writing a check for what I would call aloud, "A hundred and seven dollars
and twenty-three cents", I would write, "One Hundred Seven & thenty-three
hundredths [dollars]" or "One Hundred Seven & 23/100 [dollars]", depending
on how much of a hurry I am.
Joshua Putnam
manual that I sometimes use says the proper way to spell out the
number 550 is "five hundred and fifty," not "five hundred fifty."
Other prescribed forms:
2,020 = two thousand and twenty
1,850 = one thousand eight hundred and fifty
152,305 = one hundred and fifty-two thousand three hundred and five
This was official U.S. Government usage in 1959, but like others
here I had a few rabidly prescriptivist teachers who insisted
that the "and" was always and forever wrong and evil. I don't
know where they got this idea.
I have not looked at any newer GPO Style Manuals to see whether
"and" is still the required form for government usage; the whole
reason I have a several-decades-old style manual is to make sure
that particular writing is not laden with new-fangled usages and
constructions guaranteed to confuse or offend certain readers.
Alan Barrett
hop...@beavis.rtp.dg.com (Edward Hopkins) writes:
> On American checks there's a small box for writing the amount in
> Aribic numerals, with a "$" pre-printed on the left, and a long line
> for the same amount to be written out, with "dollars" preprinted on
> the right. So if I'm writing a check for what I would call aloud, "A
> hundred and seven dollars and twenty-three cents", I would write, "One
> Hundred Seven & thenty-three hundredths [dollars]" or "One Hundred
> Seven & 23/100 [dollars]", depending on how much of a hurry I am.
The equivalent construct here in ZA would be "One hundred and seven Rand
and twenty-three cents". The long line on the cheque does not have
"Rand" preprinted.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
Alan Barrett
bar...@lucy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan Barrett) writes:
> The equivalent construct here in ZA would be "One hundred and seven Rand
> and twenty-three cents". The long line on the cheque does not have
> "Rand" preprinted.
Er, that's the formal written form on a cheque. Less formally, that
amount of money would probably be would spoken as "One hundred and seven
Rand twenty-three" or "A hundred and seven Rand twenty-three", or even
just "One oh seven twenty-three". If 107.23 is just a number, not an
amount of money, it would probably be spoken as "one hundred and seven
point two three", "one zero seven point two three" or "one oh seven
point two three", depending on context and speaker.
Hang on, I nearly forgot: "they" want us to write numbers with a comma
instead of a decimal point, and lots of people and organisations do so,
but I don't. For those that write 107,23 instead of 107.23, the spoken
form would include "comma" instead of "point".
--apb (Alan Barrett)
Tony Pritchard
In this part of the world, the required construction would be:
"One hundred & seven dollars--23".
Funny how everyone has to do it differently - I thought banking was
international these days.