Parentheses around phone area codes?
David Nebenzahl
A friend is working on a book, and was told by the publisher that all phone
numbers in the book (there are many) should NOT have parentheses around the
area code. My friend isn't sure, but this strikes me as odd, and if not wrong,
at least out of step with standard practice (in the U.S.). I'd like to hear
what others have to say about this.
Further question: if you use parens around an area code, what if the phone
number itself if inside parentheses?
I know there are now lots of cutesy, trendy ways to display phone numbers; my
vote for the most precious and silly is using "dots" between parts of the
number. This effect reaches its full force when the numbers are widely spaced
out; just imagine this at the bottom of a glitzy real-estate ad in the
newspaper, in a fancy and barely-readable font:
p h o n e 4 1 5 . 3 2 8 . 7 7 7 7
Michael Paine
In article <35046D9B...@microtech.com>, David Nebenzahl
<n...@microtech.com> wrote:
Simple solution. Reduce the spread.
Michael
--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Gotter selbst vergebens -Schiller-
Aaron J. Dinkin
> A friend is working on a book, and was told by the publisher that all phone
> numbers in the book (there are many) should NOT have parentheses around the
> area code. My friend isn't sure, but this strikes me as odd, and if not
> wrong, at least out of step with standard practice (in the U.S.). I'd like to
> hear what others have to say about this.
Putting parentheses around an area code is standard and usual: "My phone
number is (720) 272-9879." However, when you refer to an area code with a 1
before it, as dialed (note to OFF: all area codes in the US are dialed with
a 1 preceding. ODF: Correct me if this differs in your area), omit the
parentheses: "Just dial 1-800-260-6129."
> Further question: if you use parens around an area code, what if the phone
> number itself if inside parentheses?
Tough one. I might give it with the "1" prefixed, and obviate the need for
parentheses around the area code, but that might be misleading. (For
example, if I gave my number like that, someone who lives close enough
might assume that the area code was an integral part of the number and must
be dialed even if the call is local, as 800 and 900 numbers are.)
I might leave off the "1" but still set the area code off with a dash,
rather than parentheses: "He gave his phone number (720-272-9879)."
I might use the words "area code": "He gave his phone number (area code
720, 272-9879)."
I don't think I'd use either parentheses or brackets to set off the area
code, but none of the ideas I list above seem ideal either.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Keith C. Ivey
David Nebenzahl <n...@microtech.com> wrote:
>A friend is working on a book, and was told by the publisher that all phone
>numbers in the book (there are many) should NOT have parentheses around the
>area code. My friend isn't sure, but this strikes me as odd, and if not wrong,
>at least out of step with standard practice (in the U.S.). I'd like to hear
>what others have to say about this.
I don't see anything odd, wrong, or nonstandard about it. Two
parenthesesless styles that are extremely common in the US are
202-555-1234 and 202/555-1234.
>Further question: if you use parens around an area code, what if the phone
>number itself if inside parentheses?
An excellent reason for avoiding the parentheses.
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org>
http://cpcug.org/user/kcivey/
Washington, DC
Jon Robert Crofoot
publisher possibly wants to conserve space and/or ink.
Since I don't have to be concerned with that, I tend to
favor brackets: [202] 555-1234.
Pierre Jelenc
Michael Cargal <car...@cts.com> writes:
> I've never before heard of anyone routinely using 10 digits for a local
> call.
New York City has two main area codes (212 and 718) that are geographi-
cally separated; 917 overlaps with these two (cell phones, pagers, etc),
and soon there will be one, maybe two (347, 646) additional area codes
that will be overlapping all or part of the existing ones for new
installations.
Pierre
--
Tired of TV reruns? Help is on the way!
New York City | Home Office
Beer Guide | Records
http://www.nycbeer.org/ | http://www.web-ho.com/
Rainer Thonnes
In article <35049757...@newsreader.digex.net>,
kci...@cpcug.org (Keith C. Ivey) writes:
> David Nebenzahl <n...@microtech.com> wrote:
>
> >Further question: if you use parens around an area code, what if the phone
> >number itself if inside parentheses?
>
> An excellent reason for avoiding the parentheses.
Why do you say that?
Do you consider nested brackets a concept unfathomable by the plebs?
--
I don't know whether there really is a ukol.com.
In any case I'm not there, I'm at dcs.ed.ac.uk.
Skitt
David Nebenzahl wrote in message <35046D9B...@microtech.com>...
>A friend is working on a book, and was told by the publisher that all phone
>numbers in the book (there are many) should NOT have parentheses around the
>area code. My friend isn't sure, but this strikes me as odd, and if not
wrong,
>at least out of step with standard practice (in the U.S.). I'd like to hear
>what others have to say about this.
Being very original, I thought of looking in my phone book (BellSouth) for
the answer.
When they list a number they do it as 800 555-1234. When they give dialing
instructions, they show 1+800+555-1234.
Strange, huh? BTW, either would work quite well for a number enclosed in
parentheses.
Skitt
Aaron J. Dinkin
> I've never before heard of anyone routinely using 10 digits for a local call.
It's a local call from (say) Needham, Mass. to Boston or to Dover, neither
of which is in the same area code as Needham. (In fact, they're in two
different area codes: 781 is only one town wide at Needham.) Therefore,
it's necessary to dial eleven digits (1 plus area code plus seven-digit
number) to make either of these local calls.
Curtis Cameron
> I've never before heard of anyone routinely using 10 digits for a local call.
Happens here all the time. I'm north of Dallas in the 972 area code, and
if I need to call into Dallas (with the 214 area code), I must dial all
ten digits, but it's still a local (non-toll) call. As a matter of fact,
my ISP service is in the 214 area code. It took a while to figure out
how to convince the dial-in networking program NOT to dial the area
code, or a "1" prefix. I ended up having to put all ten digits in the
field where the program expects the seven-digit number, and telling it
that the ISP is in the same area code as me.
On the other hand, when my sister moved to California, she found an ISP
which she could dial with just a seven-digit number (no "1" prefix or
area code needed). She was very surprised to get the first phone bill
for several hundred dollars. The seven-digit number was a toll call. I
had never heard of this before.
-Curtis Cameron
WGS-84 33.033N, 96.724W
Mark Baker
In article <35046D9B...@microtech.com>,
David Nebenzahl <n...@microtech.com> writes:
> A friend is working on a book, and was told by the publisher that all phone
> numbers in the book (there are many) should NOT have parentheses around the
> area code. My friend isn't sure, but this strikes me as odd, and if not wrong,
> at least out of step with standard practice (in the U.S.). I'd like to hear
> what others have to say about this.
My answer is entirely useless for you.
UK phone numbers used to normally be written with brackets around the area
code, but that was because the exchange name was given, for example
Cambridge(01223) 505167
The exchange name had to be given so people who lived in adjacent exchanges
could use local dialing codes (one or two digits, starting with 8 or 9 and
different depending on where you were dialing from) and so only pay local
rates. Then they got exchanges that would recognise local STD codes and
route calls appropriately, so there was no longer any reason for local
dialing codes and they were slowly phased out.
Last time I looked (a few years ago) BT were still recommending the form
above. I don't know whether they've changed their recommendations recently.
The most common form, by a long way, is
01223 505167
with just a space between the two. There's more variation in the way areas
with seven-digit numbers are written; you might see any of
0171 6640666
0171 664 0666
0171 664-0666
0171-664 0666
0171-664-0666
I prefer 0171 664-0666, and it does seem to be most common. The one I find
hardest to justify is 0171-664 0666.
With a lot of companies wanting to do business internationally, it is
increasingly common to see numbers written in international format, like
One thing that annoys me is
I assume this is intended for people either inside or outside the country,
but it's silly. Anyone in the UK who knew enough about international dialing
to know that they had to strip the +44 would know that they needed to add a
zero anyway; people dialing from abroad won't necessarily know that they
don't need to dial that zero.
Gwen Lenker
Michael Cargal wrote in message <35058bb1...@news2.cts.com>...
>
>One covers 2/3 ro 3/4 of the media market, and another takes in the
>rest plus a huge chunk of desert halfway up the right side of the
>state, but we're about to split again. San Diego is the 7th largest
>city but about the 20th largest media market; half of the population
>is within the city, and we're bounded by Mexico, the desert, the
>ocean, and Los Angeles.
Nice try, but you can't get rid of Legoland that easily.
Truly Donovan
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:01:38 GMT, car...@cts.com (Michael Cargal)
wrote:
>. I've never before heard
>of anyone routinely using 10 digits for a local call.
As of a few weeks ago, it became optional here. In several months it
will be mandatory. And just to confuse things further, we are not
supposed to dial the "1" first for things within our own area code
(although you can, but you might incur a long distance charge).
(At least we're now getting the cute elephant commercial ["Don't
forget to dial the area code first"] where the elephant is using a
push-button phone and....)
Your day will come.
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
David Nebenzahl
Mark Baker wrote:
> My answer is entirely useless for you.
Wrong assumption on your part: while it doesn't address the question I asked,
it is nonetheless quite useful to me, as I'm working on a project which
involves international phone numbers. Nobody around here seems to have a clue
(or care, for that matter) how these numbers should be formatted; now I do.
Thanks.
David Nebenzahl
Truly Donovan wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:01:38 GMT, car...@cts.com (Michael Cargal)
> wrote:
>
> >. I've never before heard
> >of anyone routinely using 10 digits for a local call.
>
> As of a few weeks ago, it became optional here. In several months it
> will be mandatory. And just to confuse things further, we are not
> supposed to dial the "1" first for things within our own area code
> (although you can, but you might incur a long distance charge).
Aha! Yet more evidence that it's foolish to print toll-free numbers as
"1-800-xxx-yyyy"; as illustrated here, Your Specific Dialing Instructions May
Vary.
And by the way, here in the Bay Area[1,2] we have to contend with the
following area codes: 415, 650, 408, 510 and 707.
[1] Taken as the contiguous metropolitan area approximately bounded by Marin
County (north), Alameda County (east) and Santa Clara County (south).
[2] How should this be capitalized? Bay Area? Bay area? (This isn't only a
strictly grammatical bookkeeping question, but also involves the degree of
provincialism one is willing to reveal in oneself. After all, what about the
South Bay? Chesapeake Bay? Tampa Bay?) Maybe it should always be explicit--the
San Francisco Bay area--unless the audience can be aassumed to be mostly
local.
Michael Cargal
Curtis Cameron <curt...@nospam.cyberramp.net> wrote:
>In article <350546ac....@news2.cts.com>, car...@cts.com wrote:
>
>> I've never before heard of anyone routinely using 10 digits for a local call.
>
>Happens here all the time. I'm north of Dallas in the 972 area code, and
>if I need to call into Dallas (with the 214 area code), I must dial all
>ten digits, but it's still a local (non-toll) call. As a matter of fact,
>my ISP service is in the 214 area code. It took a while to figure out
>how to convince the dial-in networking program NOT to dial the area
>code, or a "1" prefix. I ended up having to put all ten digits in the
>field where the program expects the seven-digit number, and telling it
>that the ISP is in the same area code as me.
Do you use all ten or eleven digits when calling within the 972 area?
>On the other hand, when my sister moved to California, she found an ISP
>which she could dial with just a seven-digit number (no "1" prefix or
>area code needed). She was very surprised to get the first phone bill
>for several hundred dollars. The seven-digit number was a toll call. I
>had never heard of this before.
This is common here. They distinguish "local and nearby calling" or
"local and Zone 3." Local is free. Zone 3 is within the same area
code but costs extra. Each part of town has a different Zone 3, which
the phone book says are 13 to 16 miles, but it doesn't say from where.
Michael Cargal car...@cts.com
If posting a reply, please do not email the same reply to me--it just confuses me.
Thomas Schenk
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> Truly Donovan wrote:
>
[comments on variant telephone dialing techniques deleted]
> .
>
> [2] How should this be capitalized? Bay Area? Bay area? (This isn't only a
> strictly grammatical bookkeeping question, but also involves the degree of
> provincialism one is willing to reveal in oneself. After all, what about the
> South Bay? Chesapeake Bay? Tampa Bay?) Maybe it should always be explicit--the
> San Francisco Bay area--unless the audience can be aassumed to be mostly
> local.
The San Francisco Examiner maintains that it serves the _Bay Area_. That's good
enough for me.
Tom
--
*******************
Dr Thomas M Schenk
Laguna Beach, California
Maria Conlon
David Nebenzahl wrote in message <35046D9B...@microtech.com>...
[snip]
>I know there are now lots of cutesy, trendy ways to display phone
numbers; my
>vote for the most precious and silly is using "dots" between parts of
the
>number. This effect reaches its full force when the numbers are
widely spaced
>out; just imagine this at the bottom of a glitzy real-estate ad in
the
>newspaper, in a fancy and barely-readable font:
>
>p h o n e 4 1 5 . 3 2 8 . 7 7 7 7
I just recently saw this manner of typing out a phone number; my
reaction was the same as yours. Even when the numbers are not spaced
out, the periods just don't look right. It's almost as bad as dotting
your written i's with little hearts. (Unless you're a girl of about
15. Then it's expected and okay.)
But maybe dotted phone numbers will be common in the future. In
addition to saying, "email me at such-and-such dot com," we'll also
say, "call me at 800 dot 555 dot 1234." And then, some people will ask
where the "dot" is on the phone number pad.
And who knows? Maybe the phone companies will add one, to accompany
the # and the *. Looking at the bright side, periods are easier to
type than hyphens and parentheses.
Maria Conlon
Keith C. Ivey
david...@neosoft.com (David Carson) wrote:
>Houston was the first city to have more than one area code in a local
>calling area. All 713 and 281 numbers are local to me; I need not dial 1
>or use a long distance carrier. My house is in the 281 area code, so when
>I dial other 281 numbers I can either dial all ten digits or just the last
>seven. When I dial 713 numbers, I must dial all ten digits. SW Bell
>encourages us to use all ten digits all the time. I believe that this
>system has already spread to quite a few other cities.
Having more than one area code in a local calling area doesn't require
a city that contains more than one area code. In the Washington metro
area, we've been using ten digits for many years, since 202 (DC), 703
(Virginia), and 301 (Maryland) numbers are within each other's local
calling areas. It's still possible to omit the area code when dialing
within an area code, but I often forget to do that. Since I'm in 202
at home and 703 at work, it's easier to dial ten digits all the time.
John Nurick
>A friend is working on a book, and was told by the publisher that all phone
>numbers in the book (there are many) should NOT have parentheses around the
>area code. My friend isn't sure, but this strikes me as odd, and if not wrong,
>at least out of step with standard practice (in the U.S.). I'd like to hear
>what others have to say about this.
Many (most?) countries do not share the North American scheme of
three-digit area code followed by seven-digit number, so putting
the area code in parentheses makes it much easier for computers
to parse the number and dial it correctly. But maybe not many
computers will read the book.
>Further question: if you use parens around an area code, what if the phone
>number itself if inside parentheses?
I'd still use parentheses, for the above reason (or still not
use them).
John
To e-mail me, drop clanger from address.
Truly Donovan
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:02:35 -0800, Thomas Schenk
<tmsc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> [2] How should this be capitalized? Bay Area? Bay area?
> The San Francisco Examiner maintains that it serves the _Bay Area_. That's good
>enough for me.
Sure, because you don't have to live in the Bay Area. It sure as hell
wasn't good enough for me when I lived there.
It's increasingly difficult to even find two-paper cities in this
country any more, so it has always amazed me that San Francisco can
continue to support two such awful ones. I guess it just proves what a
sentimental place it is, after all.
Graeme Thomas
In article <3505CC32...@microtech.com>, David Nebenzahl
<n...@microtech.com> writes
>Nobody around here seems to have a clue
>(or care, for that matter) how these numbers should be formatted; now I do.
describing current practice.
International telephone matters are dealt with by an organization known
as the ITU; it used to be the CCITT. They produced a specification for
writing out international telephone numbers. It is:
+ccc aaannnnnn
where "ccc" represents the country code, "aaa" an (optional) area code,
and "nnnnnn" the telephone number. The various fields are of variable
length; until recently the maximum total length was 12 digits, but this
was extended to 15. If it is desired to pad out the number to make it
more readable, then spaces can be added. Under no circumstances should
parentheses or hypens (or any other punctuation) be added.
In the UK the recommendation is to write the number twice, once in
national form, and once in international form. Thus:
Bedford (01234) 567890
+44 1234 56789
(Caution: I believe that the above number is a real one, owned by a
company that thinks the benefit of having such a memorable number
outweighs the drawbacks of all the people who are just playing.)
As Mark said, though, few people do this.
--
Graeme Thomas
Greybeard
>A friend is working on a book, and was told by the publisher that all phone
>numbers in the book (there are many) should NOT have parentheses around the
>area code. My friend isn't sure, but this strikes me as odd, and if not wrong,
>at least out of step with standard practice (in the U.S.). I'd like to hear
>what others have to say about this.
My personal preference, probably influenced by Ma Bell's original
practice, is to use the parentheses: (415) 328-7777
(That's a San Francisco number -- the Chronicle / Examiner
classifieds? Just curious.)
I have also seen the following format used fairly widely:
415-328-7777
The Chicago Manual of Style (14th ed.) apparently doesn't speak to
this.
>Further question: if you use parens around an area code, what if the phone
>number itself if inside parentheses?
I would either use an alternative format (such as the second above),
or change the surrounding parentheses to brackets, or avoid the
situation entirely. I'm very firm about this.
>I know there are now lots of cutesy, trendy ways to display phone numbers; my
>vote for the most precious and silly is using "dots" between parts of the
>number. This effect reaches its full force when the numbers are widely spaced
>out; just imagine this at the bottom of a glitzy real-estate ad in the
>newspaper, in a fancy and barely-readable font:
>
>p h o n e 4 1 5 . 3 2 8 . 7 7 7 7
It's worse when the cute format is on a business card and my bifocals
prove inadequate.
Regards,
Greybeard
Neil Coffey
In article <35097050...@enews.newsguy.com>, Greybeard
<URL:mailto:jmes...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >A friend is working on a book, and was told by the publisher that all phone
> >numbers in the book (there are many) should NOT have parentheses around the
> >area code. My friend isn't sure, but this strikes me as odd, and if not wrong,
> >at least out of step with standard practice (in the U.S.). I'd like to hear
> >what others have to say about this.
>
> My personal preference, probably influenced by Ma Bell's original
> practice, is to use the parentheses: (415) 328-7777
> (That's a San Francisco number -- the Chronicle / Examiner
> classifieds? Just curious.)
What do phone companies say? In Britan, BT specifically states in
the telephone directories that numbers should be quoted with the area
code in brackets.
On the other hand, if the publisher wants them without brackets,
then so be it. My personal opinion is that provided it's obvious what
is an area code and what isn't (and in the UK, this is obvious), it
doesn't really matter whether or not you put brackets round it. Also,
in the UK it is possible to dial the area code even when you're inside
the given area; this is not the same for all countries.
Neil
David Nebenzahl
Truly Donovan wrote:
[...]
> It's increasingly difficult to even find two-paper cities in this
> country any more, so it has always amazed me that San Francisco can
> continue to support two such awful ones. I guess it just proves what a
> sentimental place it is, after all.
As anyone who reads crusading Bruce Brugmann's "San Francisco Bay Guardian"
knows, we have 1 sorry-ass, emasculated excuse for a newspaper with 2 heads,
operating under what is euphemistically called a "joint operating
arrangement". This peculiar configuration leads to all kinds of silliness,
like the thundering silence (aside from snide columnists--gotta love 'em!)
from both papers when elbow-breaking Phil Bronstein married Sharon Stone. (I
hear the Stones are very happy these days.)
There are incredible gaping holes in news coverage here: as Brugmann
obsessively points (3 cheers to him & his paper!), nothing which might
remotely impugn Pacific Gas & Electric's stranglehold on power ever sees the
light of print in either the Ex or Chron.
David Nebenzahl
David Carson wrote:
[...]
> Extending this logic, I propose that the answer to David Nebenzahl's pet
> peeve is to notate 800 numbers as:
>
> (1) 800-555-1212
>
> What do you think of that, David?
As an answer to either of my 'phone peeves (spurious dialing instructions as
part of the number and omitting parentheses around area codes), this obviously
fails on both counts. But you must have known that, and therefore set me up,
so I can only say Bingo! for having bitten.
My preference is (800) 555-1212.
(Disclaimer: this goes for U.S. phone numbers only. I'm just discovering the
depth of my ignorance of international numbers, or maybe it's just the great
variety thereof.)
Cissy . Thorpe
> On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:01:38 GMT, car...@cts.com (Michael Cargal) wrote:
>
> >david...@neosoft.com (David Carson) wrote:
> >>Nowadays, 10-digit dialing is more and more the norm
> >>in the U.S., even for local (non-toll) calls. Media markets in every
> >>large American city cover anywhere up to a dozen area codes; no urban
> >>business can get by with putting only a 7-digit phone number in its ads.
> >
> >San Diego is only the seventh largest city in the country, but I just
> >checked a few pages of newspapers ads and found that about half gave
> >the area code. Amost all of those used parentheses. A few separated
> >the area code from the rest of the number with a slash. None use dots
> >(though that is the convention where I work). I've never before heard
> >of anyone routinely using 10 digits for a local call.
>
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, David Carson wrote:
> Houston was the first city to have more than one area code in a local
> calling area. All 713 and 281 numbers are local to me; I need not dial 1
> or use a long distance carrier. My house is in the 281 area code, so when
> I dial other 281 numbers I can either dial all ten digits or just the last
> seven. When I dial 713 numbers, I must dial all ten digits. SW Bell
> encourages us to use all ten digits all the time. I believe that this
> system has already spread to quite a few other cities.
>
> In addition to 713 and 281, the Houston media market includes the 409 area
> code at its fringes. I don't know how many area codes are in San Diego's
> media market (i.e. the geographical scope of its television and radio
> broadcasts and newspaper circulation), but based on the information you
> gave, one area code must pretty well cover it.
>
> David Carson
> --
> Friendswood, Texas, USA
San Antonio recently separated from the 512 area code and several of the
suburbs are different from the 210 of the city - we don't have to dial
the 1+ the area code and number, just the 10-digits. SW Bell has
encouraged us to use the 10 numbers for local calls as well - tho I have
noticed that sometimes I get the "you don't have to dial the area code"
and sometimes I don't...no predicting when.
I have developed the habit of including the area code in all
correspondence - with only a hyphen between the area code and the number
(123-456-7890)
My 2p
Cissy
Stan Brown
In article <35046D9B...@microtech.com>, n...@microtech.com (David
Nebenzahl) seems to have written:
>A friend is working on a book, and was told by the publisher that all phone
>numbers in the book (there are many) should NOT have parentheses around the
>area code. My friend isn't sure, but this strikes me as odd, and if not wrong,
>at least out of step with standard practice (in the U.S.). I'd like to hear
>what others have to say about this.
You didn't say, but from your "com" suffix I'll guess that you're talking
about U.S. area codes.
For domestic use, (218) 333-4600 is the normal form. For international
use, you will not be surprised to hear that there is an international
standard. It is
plus sign (+), understood to mean "dial whatever you need to get
to the international network"
country code
a space
area code/region code/city code
another space
local number, with groups of digits separated by spaces or dashes
according to local practice.
It so happens that the country code for the US and Canada is 1, the same
as the long-distance prefix; that is not true in any other countries as
far as I know. So a US or Canada number, written in international form,
looks a lot like the domestic number.
Example: +1 218 333-4600 or +1 218 333 4600.
This is a perennial topic in comp.dcom.telecom. See "What is the correct
way to write a telephone number for international use?" about a third of
the way down the Telecom FAQ at
http://mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/new-
readers/frequent-ask-questions-97
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://www.concentric.net/%7eBrownsta/
Please do not send me mail with a false return address.
Keith C. Ivey
r...@ukol.com (Rainer Thonnes) wrote:
>kci...@cpcug.org (Keith C. Ivey) writes:
>> David Nebenzahl <n...@microtech.com> wrote:
>> >number itself if inside parentheses?
>>
>
>Why do you say that?
>Do you consider nested brackets a concept unfathomable by the plebs?
Actually, yes. Some people (presumably not Lisp programmers) seem to
have trouble with it, so many style guides prescribe using square
brackets rather than parentheses within parentheses (although it's the
other way round in mathematics). I don't think that would work for
phone numbers, though.
Note: Over here, we have
parentheses ()
(square) brackets []
(curly) braces {}
angle brackets <>
In the UK, I think, these are all brackets. The difference
occasionally causes confusion in AUE discussions.
Keith C. Ivey
Thomas Schenk <tmsc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The San Francisco Examiner maintains that it serves the _Bay Area_.
> That's good enough for me.
That's all well and good, but around here we write "Northern Virginia"
-- that doesn't mean I expect the whole world to capitalize it that
way.
Chuck Maurer
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 23:56:50 -0500, "Maria Conlon" <mcon...@sprynet.com>
wrote:
>
>David Nebenzahl wrote in message <35046D9B...@microtech.com>...
>[snip]
>>I know there are now lots of cutesy, trendy ways to display phone
>numbers; my
>>vote for the most precious and silly is using "dots" between parts of
>the
>>number. This effect reaches its full force when the numbers are
>widely spaced
>>out; just imagine this at the bottom of a glitzy real-estate ad in
>the
>>newspaper, in a fancy and barely-readable font:
>>
>>p h o n e 4 1 5 . 3 2 8 . 7 7 7 7
>
>
>I just recently saw this manner of typing out a phone number; my
>reaction was the same as yours. Even when the numbers are not spaced
>out, the periods just don't look right. It's almost as bad as dotting
>your written i's with little hearts. (Unless you're a girl of about
>15. Then it's expected and okay.)
>
>But maybe dotted phone numbers will be common in the future. In
>addition to saying, "email me at such-and-such dot com," we'll also
>say, "call me at 800 dot 555 dot 1234." And then, some people will ask
>where the "dot" is on the phone number pad.
>
>And who knows? Maybe the phone companies will add one, to accompany
>the # and the *. Looking at the bright side, periods are easier to
>type than hyphens and parentheses.
>
>Maria Conlon
>
>
Does a modem ignore dots, like it does - an () ?
Chuck Maurer
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 15:32:02 GMT, jmes...@newsguy.com (Greybeard) wrote:
>
>My personal preference, probably influenced by Ma Bell's original
>practice, is to use the parentheses: (415) 328-7777
>(That's a San Francisco number -- the Chronicle / Examiner
>classifieds? Just curious.)
>
The parenthesis are around digits some people may not need to dial. The digits
outside the parenthesis are required by everyone.
>I have also seen the following format used fairly widely:
>415-328-7777
>
>The Chicago Manual of Style (14th ed.) apparently doesn't speak to
>this.
>
>>Further question: if you use parens around an area code, what if the phone
>>number itself if inside parentheses?
>
>I would either use an alternative format (such as the second above),
>or change the surrounding parentheses to brackets, or avoid the
>situation entirely. I'm very firm about this.
>
>>I know there are now lots of cutesy, trendy ways to display phone numbers; my
>>vote for the most precious and silly is using "dots" between parts of the
>>number. This effect reaches its full force when the numbers are widely spaced
>>out; just imagine this at the bottom of a glitzy real-estate ad in the
>>newspaper, in a fancy and barely-readable font:
>>
>>p h o n e 4 1 5 . 3 2 8 . 7 7 7 7
>
Mike Barnes
In alt.usage.english, David Nebenzahl <n...@microtech.com> spake
thuswise:
>My preference is (800) 555-1212.
>
>(Disclaimer: this goes for U.S. phone numbers only. I'm just discovering the
>depth of my ignorance of international numbers, or maybe it's just the great
>variety thereof.)
I'll lessen the depth somewhat by pointing out that in the UK, the
standard is to put the first part of the number in parentheses *only* if
that part can be omitted when dialling from a similar number (i.e. a
number that starts with the same digits).
A number starting with 01663 is local to where I live. You can dial the
number in full from anywhere in the UK. From any other 01663 phone you
can omit the 01663 when dialling. So the 01663 is often written in
parentheses, to indicate that it is optional.
A number starting with 0800 must always be dialled in full (it is a non-
geographical code that costs the caller nothing, like your 800 number).
It is not correct to put parentheses round the 0800.
Unfortunately this eminently sensible "rule" is unknown to most of the
population.
--
-- Mike Barnes, Stockport, England.
-- If you post a response to Usenet, please *don't* send me a copy by e-mail.
Donna Richoux
David Nebenzahl <n...@microtech.com> wrote:
> (Disclaimer: this goes for U.S. phone numbers only. I'm just discovering the
> depth of my ignorance of international numbers, or maybe it's just the great
> variety thereof.)
Hah. Be very careful about going to a foreign country where the first
thing you are supposed to do is find a pay phone and call someone. Not
only may you be suffering from jet lag and general exhaustion, and not
only do you either have to get and identify some foreign coins, or
decipher what sort of card is to be inserted in the phone and where that
can be obtained, and how and when to insert such objects, but there will
also quite likely be several significant differences in the technology
of the phone (such as the sound of the dial tone and various signals
like busy, out of order, and "pip pip pip"), and only after many
miserable minutes will you learn that in order to reach your party you
are supposed to put a "l" or some mysterious and elaborate prefix in at
a certain point, because all the phone numbers in that region have been
revised in the last year. We're talking culture shock in the most direct
manner.
Oh well, I suppose this is the sort of experience people will long for
after everything is universally homogenized.
Best wishes --- Donna Richoux
Bob Cunningham
On 12 Mar 1998 13:18:38 GMT, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) said:
[ . . . ]
>Be very careful about going to a foreign country where the first
>thing you are supposed to do is find a pay phone and call someone. Not
>only may you be suffering from jet lag and general exhaustion, and not
>only do you either have to get and identify some foreign coins, or
>decipher what sort of card is to be inserted in the phone and where that
>can be obtained, and how and when to insert such objects, but there will
>also quite likely be several significant differences in the technology
>of the phone (such as the sound of the dial tone and various signals
>like busy, out of order, and "pip pip pip"),
A friend of ours traveled to Germany several years ago to visit her son,
who was working for a German firm. The son was expecting her to call
when she arrived. One morning the phone in the office rang, but when
they answered, no one was there. This happened several times, and
eventually the son realized what was happening. The next time the phone
rang he grabbed it and shouted 'Push the button, mother!' It turned out
the phone our friend was calling from had a button that had to be pushed
all the time you were talking; otherwise, the people at the other end
wouldn't hear you.
Mark Baker
In article <1PI2UMAf...@graemet.demon.co.uk>,
Graeme Thomas <gra...@graemet.demon.co.uk> writes:
> +44 1234 56789
>
> (Caution: I believe that the above number is a real one, owned by a
> company that thinks the benefit of having such a memorable number
> outweighs the drawbacks of all the people who are just playing.)
No it isn't.
01234 numbers are six digits, and they deliberately haven't allocated the 56
DE block until they can think go something interesting to do with it.
M EASTERBROOK
In article <6e4eq0$aiu$1...@aziraphale.pet.cam.ac.uk> you wrote:
> With a lot of companies wanting to do business internationally, it is
> increasingly common to see numbers written in international format, like
Instructions for mobile phones encourage the use of this format for its
internal directory. In the home country (UK) the +44 is converted to 0
(the national dialing code) and anywhere else the + is converted to the
international access code (00 in most places as this is the international
standard).
If everyone used this form then there would not be a problem.
It also helps identify the country when it is not obvious from the context
(as is the case with many web based documents).
1-475-4567 (where?) +353 1 475 5735 (Dublin, Republic of Ireland)
(405) 123-4567 (where?) +1 405 123 4567 (North America (USA or Canada))
0171 123 4567 (where?) +44 171 123 4567 (London, UK).
081232123456 (where?) +44 1232 123456 (Belfast, Northern Ireland)
(The last one, 08..., is a Belfast number as dialed from the Republic
of Ireland, really confusing if you don't know about Irish 08 numbers!).
(These are all made-up numbers - don't try dialing them!).
> One thing that annoys me is
Horrible. Confusing. Wrong. I hate people who use this form.
> I assume this is intended for people either inside or outside the country,
> but it's silly. Anyone in the UK who knew enough about international dialing
> to know that they had to strip the +44 would know that they needed to add a
> zero anyway; people dialing from abroad won't necessarily know that they
> don't need to dial that zero.
--
--
Mark.Easterbrook(at)nortel.co.uk +44 1232 363772 (Nortel/BNR at Monkstown)
at home: MEasterbrook(at)compuserve.com GI0JPW (Northern Ireland)
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
See ye here, tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan) crafted the following words:
>On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:02:35 -0800, Thomas Schenk
><tmsc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>David Nebenzahl wrote:
>
>>> [2] How should this be capitalized? Bay Area? Bay area?
>> The San Francisco Examiner maintains that it serves the _Bay Area_. That's good
>>enough for me.
>
>Sure, because you don't have to live in the Bay Area. It sure as hell
>wasn't good enough for me when I lived there.
>
>It's increasingly difficult to even find two-paper cities in this
>country any more, so it has always amazed me that San Francisco can
>continue to support two such awful ones. I guess it just proves what a
>sentimental place it is, after all.
The Bay Area now supports 3 decent newspapers. The ExamiChron
(http://www.sfgate.com/) (together 2 awful papers can equal one not-so-bad
paper) the Murky news (http://sjmercury.com/), and the Contra Costa Times
(http://www.hotcoco.com/). And you can search all of them online.
It's silly to think of this area as "San Francisco" anymore. The Bay Area is
7-10 million people depending on how far out you consider part of the Bay Area,
and SF proper is ~700k.
All email sent to the address used for this post is deleted unread
(although headers may be used in my spam filters). To reach my real
email box, send to personal@ at the above domain.
William R. Ward
"Cissy . Thorpe" <cth...@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu> writes:
> > On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:01:38 GMT, car...@cts.com (Michael Cargal) wrote:
> > >david...@neosoft.com (David Carson) wrote:
> > >>Nowadays, 10-digit dialing is more and more the norm
> > >>in the U.S., even for local (non-toll) calls. Media markets in every
> > >>large American city cover anywhere up to a dozen area codes; no urban
> > >>business can get by with putting only a 7-digit phone number in its ads.
> > >
> > >of anyone routinely using 10 digits for a local call.
>
> On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, David Carson wrote:
> > Houston was the first city to have more than one area code in a local
> > calling area. All 713 and 281 numbers are local to me; I need not dial 1
> > or use a long distance carrier. My house is in the 281 area code, so when
> > I dial other 281 numbers I can either dial all ten digits or just the last
> > seven. When I dial 713 numbers, I must dial all ten digits. SW Bell
> > encourages us to use all ten digits all the time. I believe that this
> > system has already spread to quite a few other cities.
>
> San Antonio recently separated from the 512 area code and several of the
> suburbs are different from the 210 of the city - we don't have to dial
> the 1+ the area code and number, just the 10-digits. SW Bell has
> encouraged us to use the 10 numbers for local calls as well - tho I have
> noticed that sometimes I get the "you don't have to dial the area code"
> and sometimes I don't...no predicting when.
The worst thing about all of this NANP area code mitosis is the
inconsistent manner that different areas are using to handle the
dialing of numbers. Here in the Bay Area (to tie in another
sub-thread; I always capitalize Area, even when spelling out San
Francisco Bay Area - where I live, in Santa Cruz, is part of the
Monterey Bay area with a lowercase "a"), we have the rule that if
dialing to 10 digit number you must dial a 1 first, and if dialing
only the 7 digit number you must not dial a 1. Thus the 1 indicates
that the next three digits are an area code. This has no relationship
whatsoever to whether or not you will pay a long distance toll. In
other parts of the country, the rule is that you dial a 1 if it's long
distance and you don't if it's local, regardless of the number of
digits involved. This gets really confusing really fast when you
travel from one urban area to another... and now with the removal of
the rule that area codes' middle digit must be a 0 or a 1, we have
area codes madly splitting like cancer cells.
Personally I think they should have used geographically overlapping
area codes with the new ones being reserved for cell phones, voice
mail, PBX's, and pagers, and use the old area codes for conventional
phones. But they didn't ask me. And in a couple of months the 408 in
my signature is going to have to change to 831. *sigh*
--Bill.
--
William R Ward Bay View Consulting http://www.bayview.com/~hermit/
her...@bayview.com 1803 Mission St. #339 voicemail +1 408/479-4072
her...@cats.ucsc.edu Santa Cruz CA 95060 USA pager +1 408/458-8862
PGP Key 0x2BD331E5; Public key at http://www.bayview.com/~hermit/pubkey.txt
Chuck Maurer
On 14 Mar 1998 01:07:55 -0800, her...@cats.ucsc.edu (William R. Ward) wrote:
>The worst thing about all of this NANP area code mitosis is the
>inconsistent manner that different areas are using to handle the
>dialing of numbers. Here in the Bay Area (to tie in another
>sub-thread; I always capitalize Area, even when spelling out San
>Francisco Bay Area - where I live, in Santa Cruz, is part of the
>Monterey Bay area with a lowercase "a"), we have the rule that if
>dialing to 10 digit number you must dial a 1 first, and if dialing
>only the 7 digit number you must not dial a 1. Thus the 1 indicates
>that the next three digits are an area code. This has no relationship
>whatsoever to whether or not you will pay a long distance toll. In
>other parts of the country, the rule is that you dial a 1 if it's long
>distance and you don't if it's local, regardless of the number of
>digits involved. This gets really confusing really fast when you
>travel from one urban area to another... and now with the removal of
>the rule that area codes' middle digit must be a 0 or a 1, we have
>area codes madly splitting like cancer cells.
Here in Texas, when calling someone in a different area code that is still
local, we dial 10 digits. We MUST NOT dial a 1 before the area code. I wonder
what happened to the people who had phone numbers like 214-972-XXXX.
The Chocolate Lady
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:55:06 -0600 during the alt.usage.english
Community News Flash, Curtis Cameron <curt...@nospam.cyberramp.net>
reported:
>In article <350546ac....@news2.cts.com>, car...@cts.com wrote:
>
>> I've never before heard of anyone routinely using 10 digits for a local call.
>
>Happens here all the time. I'm north of Dallas in the 972 area code, and
>if I need to call into Dallas (with the 214 area code),
This has certainly opened up my eyes! The country code for were I
live - Israel - is 972. It would seem to me, therefore, that when
stating phone numbers for potential international use, the best idea
would be to write it thusly:
This would distinguish it completely from a phone number in Israel
which would be more like:
972-2-555-1234
The Chocolate Lady
Davida Chazan
~*~*~*~*~*~
De chocolatei non est disputandum! Ergo, carpe chocolatum!
~*~*~*~*~*~
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund:
http://www.geocities.com/~hitchcockc/story.html#fund
The Chocolate Lady
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 04:06:15 GMT during the alt.usage.english
Community News Flash, david...@neosoft.com (David Carson)
reported:
>However, when I need to pass along the phone number to a colleague, I give
>him:
>
> (011) 44-181-652-xxxx
>
>This is because 011 isn't part of the U.K. party's phone number; it is
>what my colleague probably has to dial in order to get started. (He may
>also need to dial 9 for an outside line first, but I expect him to know
>that for himself.)
>
The only problem with this is that you can only use the (011) when
quoting your number to someone in North America. Most of the rest of
the world use the international access code of (00), to the best of my
knowledge.
TsuiDF
The Chocolate Lady wrote:
> >
> The only problem with this is that you can only use the (011) when
> quoting your number to someone in North America. Most of the rest of
> the world use the international access code of (00), to the best of my
> knowledge.
>
True about it being a problem to use "011" -- but not true about "00".
Here in Hong Kong, one can use any of several international access
codes, depending on your provider. Ones I'm familiar with include 01,
07, 0060, 08, and that's just the ones I've used lately and remember.
Other countries where I remember dialing IDD calls had international
codes including 01, 00, and 07 (I think that was somewhere in the Middle
East . . .) and I'm sure there are other combinations out there. Best
way to give out your phone number is unadorned, with dashes or spaces
between the chunks, I think. Examples: 852-2842-0000 (a HK number with
its country code) or 91-22-xxx-yyyy (an Indian number? it's whatever my
fax machine was last dialing).
It's up to the people you deal with to figure out how their own phones
work, I'm afraid, and it would certainly muck up business cards and
stationery if you had to include other codes!
Stephanie M in richly telecommed HK
Mark Baker
In article <350D1E...@netvigator.com>,
TsuiDF <s...@netvigator.com> writes:
> True about it being a problem to use "011" -- but not true about "00".
It's certainly true in almost all of Europe and several other countries. I'm
not sure, but I think it's an ITU recommendation.
It used to be 010 here, but they changed to 00 a few years ago.
> Here in Hong Kong, one can use any of several international access
> codes, depending on your provider. Ones I'm familiar with include 01,
> 07, 0060, 08, and that's just the ones I've used lately and remember.
Why can't they all agree on one?
> East . . .) and I'm sure there are other combinations out there. Best
> way to give out your phone number is unadorned, with dashes or spaces
> between the chunks, I think. Examples: 852-2842-0000 (a HK number with
> its country code) or 91-22-xxx-yyyy
That's not a good idea: it isn't obvious that those _are_ international
numbers. Put them in the recommended format (i.e. with a + in front) so
there can be no confusion.
Mark Barton
In article <6ejebo$amn$1...@aziraphale.pet.cam.ac.uk>,
mba...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Mark Baker) wrote:
>In article <350D1E...@netvigator.com>,
> TsuiDF <s...@netvigator.com> writes:
>
>> True about it being a problem to use "011" -- but not true about "00".
>
>It's certainly true in almost all of Europe and several other countries. I'm
>not sure, but I think it's an ITU recommendation.
>
>It used to be 010 here, but they changed to 00 a few years ago.
>
>> Here in Hong Kong, one can use any of several international access
>> codes, depending on your provider. Ones I'm familiar with include 01,
>> 07, 0060, 08, and that's just the ones I've used lately and remember.
>
>Why can't they all agree on one?
Because if there are many separate providers of long distance phone lines,
it needs to be possible to deduce the provider from the phone number so
that the billing can be done correctly. In the US, 011 gets you a default
provider that the local phone company has a deal with, and if you want
another provider you have to dial a separate 5-digit code (e.g., 10222 for
MCI) in front of the 011. Therefore the concept of a single "international
access code" remains well-defined. However in other countries (e.g.,
Japan), the international prefix itself is changed (e.g., 011 = NTT ->
0061 = KDD).
Cheers,
Mark B.
--
Please remove the spam block (both bits) from my address to reply.
If you receive this by email, note that it was posted as well. Please
make your preferences about CCing known. My default is to CC when
answering a serious query or if I severely criticise a post.
Dale Hagglund
dav...@jdc.org.il (The Chocolate Lady) writes:
> david...@neosoft.com (David Carson) reported:
>
> >However, when I need to pass along the phone number to a colleague, I give
> >him:
> >
> > (011) 44-181-652-xxxx
> >
> >This is because 011 isn't part of the U.K. party's phone number; it is
> >what my colleague probably has to dial in order to get started. (He may
> >also need to dial 9 for an outside line first, but I expect him to know
> >that for himself.)
> >
>
> The only problem with this is that you can only use the (011) when
> quoting your number to someone in North America. Most of the rest of
> the world use the international access code of (00), to the best of my
> knowledge.
As far as I know, the ``standard'' for giving an international number
is to use a plus (+) sign to indicate whatever sequence of digits the
caller will have to type to get an internation call started, then the
country code, a space, then the phone number within the country. Ie,
assuming my phone number in the US (country code 1) is
I would often write my phone number, especially in email signatures or
on business cards, as
Miscellaneous punctuation can be inserted as you see fit, although I
don't believe it has any particular meaning except to indicate
groupings that may be significant within a particular country.
I have often seen, for example, UK phone numbers written as
+44 nnnnn
because 44 is the country code for the UK.
Even though I suspect most people in the US don't know this, they can
interpret the American number since the US country code is the same as
the traditional ``must dial an area code next'' prefix in the US.
(Note that this isn't a co-incidence. Since the US had the biggest
telephone network at the time most of this stuff was getting
standardized, it got to make life easy for itself.)
Dale.
Chuck Maurer
On 16 Mar 1998 23:18:38 -0800, Dale Hagglund <r...@best.com> wrote:
>Even though I suspect most people in the US don't know this, they can
>interpret the American number since the US country code is the same as
>the traditional ``must dial an area code next'' prefix in the US.
>(Note that this isn't a co-incidence. Since the US had the biggest
>telephone network at the time most of this stuff was getting
>standardized, it got to make life easy for itself.)
>
I always thought this was because the number 1 is the easiest to dial on a
rotary dial.
>Dale.
O.Det
David Nebenzahl wrote:
> A friend is working on a book, and was told by the publisher that all phone
> numbers in the book (there are many) should NOT have parentheses around the
> area code. My friend isn't sure, but this strikes me as odd, and if not wrong,
> at least out of step with standard practice (in the U.S.). I'd like to hear
> Further question: if you use parens around an area code, what if the phone
> number itself if inside parentheses?
> vote for the most precious and silly is using "dots" between parts of the
> number. This effect reaches its full force when the numbers are widely spaced
> out; just imagine this at the bottom of a glitzy real-estate ad in the
> newspaper, in a fancy and barely-readable font:
> p h o n e 4 1 5 . 3 2 8 . 7 7 7 7
First, your last -- yes, this is silly and serves no purpose except
to draw attention by it's sheer outrageousness.
Second, I have found -- in the US, at least -- that both parens and
slashes are used, so you might have
(415) 328-7777
or 415/328-7777
In e-mail, I often use a space, as in
although I'm fairly certain it's not "correct", I find it easier to
read. On a business card, I always use a sarifed font (i.e., Times)
and parents, followed by a space.
Then, of course, you have the "problem" of international numbers.
I guess it depends on the book and, more importantly, the editor.
Many books of the "1001 places to go camping within 50 miles of
here" type give the phone numbers of the various campgrounds with
parens, which I find perfectly acceptable, and think of as "most
proper/formal". Even within parentheses, I would still paren the
number as in
Tom's number is (415) 328-7777 (although he's often at his
girlfriend, Jane's, house, (408) 327-8888.)
(Wow! For 10 extra punctuation points, where did the commas
correctly go in that last example?! Note: I originally wrote
the example just "...girlfriend's house, (408..."; adding "Jane"
made it more complicated.)
If your editor says they want it a certain way, you can try to
argue, but they'll probably pull rank. I suppose it might
depend on rank -- if they're working for you or for your
publisher (meaning you work for them, sort-of.)
William R. Ward
> Community News Flash, Curtis Cameron <curt...@nospam.cyberramp.net>
> reported:
>
> >In article <350546ac....@news2.cts.com>, car...@cts.com wrote:
> >
> >> I've never before heard of anyone routinely using 10 digits for a local call.
> >
> >Happens here all the time. I'm north of Dallas in the 972 area code, and
> >if I need to call into Dallas (with the 214 area code),
>
> This has certainly opened up my eyes! The country code for were I
> live - Israel - is 972. It would seem to me, therefore, that when
> stating phone numbers for potential international use, the best idea
> would be to write it thusly:
>
> 1-972-555-1234
>
> This would distinguish it completely from a phone number in Israel
> which would be more like:
>
> 972-2-555-1234
Actually as has been discussed to death, the standard is to put a + in
front of the country code, and there seems to be a bias against
hyphens, so the Dallas directory assistance number is:
while your Israeli example would be:
HTH.
Skitt
William R. Ward wrote in message ...
>Actually as has been discussed to death, the standard is to put a +
in
>front of the country code, and there seems to be a bias against
>hyphens, so the Dallas directory assistance number is:
>
>+1 972 555 1212
The phone company that assigns the numbers has no such bias. It shows
a hyphen between the exchange and the number, as follows:
800 555-1212 (notice the lack of paretheses for the area code.)
For dialing instructions it shows: 1+800+555-1212
Skitt
shaky...@gmail.com
> A friend is working on a book, and was told by the publisher that all phone
> numbers in the book (there are many) should NOT have parentheses around the
> area code. My friend isn't sure, but this strikes me as odd, and if not wrong,
> at least out of step with standard practice (in the U.S.). I'd like to hear
> what others have to say about this.
>
> Further question: if you use parens around an area code, what if the phone
> number itself if inside parentheses?
>
> I know there are now lots of cutesy, trendy ways to display phone numbers; my
> vote for the most precious and silly is using "dots" between parts of the
> number. This effect reaches its full force when the numbers are widely spaced
> out; just imagine this at the bottom of a glitzy real-estate ad in the
> newspaper, in a fancy and barely-readable font:
>
> p h o n e 4 1 5 . 3 2 8 . 7 7 7 7
Again, what is the goal? To follow pointless rules for a bygone time? Or, convey the needed information to the view as fast and memorable way as possible? The phone number and numbers in general are as important in typographic information as anything else. You see tracking out of letter spacing as "cutesy" yet it serves a purpose.
415.328.7777
This displays the information.
4 1 5 . 3 2 8 . 7 7 7 7
So if you want to follow grammar school rules, it's,
1 (415) 328-7777 ext. 14
But be strong, have courage, break a rule, and for the love of god stop using parentheses for a no longer optional number.
David Kleinecke
Athel Cornish-Bowden
out of print.
--
athel
Colonel Edmund J. Burke
> On Monday, March 9, 1998 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> A friend is working on a book, and was told by the publisher that all phone
>> numbers in the book (there are many) should NOT have parentheses around the
>> area code. My friend isn't sure, but this strikes me as odd, and if not wrong,
>> at least out of step with standard practice (in the U.S.). I'd like to hear
>> what others have to say about this.
bil...@shaw.ca
> > A friend is working on a book, and was told by the publisher that all phone
> > numbers in the book (there are many) should NOT have parentheses around the
> > area code. My friend isn't sure, but this strikes me as odd, and if not wrong,
> > at least out of step with standard practice (in the U.S.). I'd like to hear
> > what others have to say about this.
> >
> > Further question: if you use parens around an area code, what if the phone
> > number itself if inside parentheses?
> >
> > I know there are now lots of cutesy, trendy ways to display phone numbers; my
> > vote for the most precious and silly is using "dots" between parts of the
> > number. This effect reaches its full force when the numbers are widely spaced
> > out; just imagine this at the bottom of a glitzy real-estate ad in the
> > newspaper, in a fancy and barely-readable font:
> >
> > p h o n e 4 1 5 . 3 2 8 . 7 7 7 7
>
> This is really rather simple.
bill
Athel Cornish-Bowden
--
athel
J. J. Lodder
> On 2017-11-22 01:19:39 +0000, bil...@shaw.ca said:
>
> >>> A friend is working on a book, and was told by the publisher that all
> >>> phone numbers in the book (there are many) should NOT have parentheses
> >>> around the area code. My friend isn't sure, but this strikes me as
> >>> odd, and if not wrong, at least out of step with standard practice (in
> >>> the U.S.). I'd like to hear what others have to say about this.
> >>>
> >>> Further question: if you use parens around an area code, what if the
> >>> phone number itself if inside parentheses?
> >>>
> >>> I know there are now lots of cutesy, trendy ways to display phone
> >>> numbers; my vote for the most precious and silly is using "dots"
> >>> between parts of the number. This effect reaches its full force when
> >>> the numbers are widely spaced out; just imagine this at the bottom of
> >>> a glitzy real-estate ad in the newspaper, in a fancy and
> >>> barely-readable font:
> >>>
> >>> p h o n e 4 1 5 . 3 2 8 . 7 7 7 7
> >>
> >> This is really rather simple.
> >
> > Then why did it take you nine and a half years to figure it out?
>
> Nineteen and a half!
he is completely unaware that some things are done differently
in other parts of the world,
Jan
Peter T. Daniels
you are sadly mistaken (hardly surprising). The normal punctuation in phone numbers is hyphens. Area
codes are rarely enclosed in parentheses any more, because they are almost everywhere necessary even
for a local call.
J. J. Lodder
Jan
Lewis
> On Monday, March 9, 1998 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> A friend is working on a book, and was told by the publisher that all phone
>> numbers in the book (there are many) should NOT have parentheses around the
>> area code. My friend isn't sure, but this strikes me as odd, and if not wrong,
>> at least out of step with standard practice (in the U.S.). I'd like to hear
>> what others have to say about this.
>>
>> Further question: if you use parens around an area code, what if the phone
>> number itself if inside parentheses?
>>
>> I know there are now lots of cutesy, trendy ways to display phone numbers; my
>> vote for the most precious and silly is using "dots" between parts of the
>> number. This effect reaches its full force when the numbers are widely spaced
>> out; just imagine this at the bottom of a glitzy real-estate ad in the
>> newspaper, in a fancy and barely-readable font:
>>
>> p h o n e 4 1 5 . 3 2 8 . 7 7 7 7
> This is really rather simple. The most straightforward way to present
> the information is with periods. It's not "cutesy" or "trendy" it's
> utilitarian. It also leaves little room for mistakes. Maybe in the
> 90's when it mattered if the number was a local or long distance call,
> but when do we ever not use the area code. Regardless, 1.415.328.7777
> or 415.328.7777 is simple, no brackets, no parentheses, no hyphens.
> Need to ad an extension? That's simple too, 415.328.7777.14
tel: URI
tel:+1.415.555.1212 x1003
Most phones cannot understand how to dial a number with an extension,
and if they do they need a comma or two to indicate the pause, so I do
not put the extension flush with the rest of the number.
I avoid parans as much as possible.
I am constantly surprised by the number of websites that require you to
format a phone number:
4155551212 "Phone number is invalid, it must be entered as "(xxx)
xxx-xxxx or xxx-xxx-xxxx" which makes me want to find the web monkey
responsible and beat him with a aluminum bat.
--
Secret to a happy relationship: when you're wrong, admit it. When you're
right, shut up.
Peter Moylan
> I am constantly surprised by the number of websites that require you to
> format a phone number:
>
> 4155551212 "Phone number is invalid, it must be entered as "(xxx)
> xxx-xxxx or xxx-xxx-xxxx" which makes me want to find the web monkey
> responsible and beat him with a aluminum bat.
you what format they are expecting. For that I would use a solid wooden bat.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
bil...@shaw.ca
bill
Whiskers
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
John Varela
digits are required for local calls. The same will be true of other
large metro areas.
I have long since abandoned the use of parentheses in phone numbers.
Some on-line forms explicitly ask that no parentheses be used. I
just type the numbers with no break points, the same way I do when
typing into a phone.
--
John Varela
John Varela
threads when Brits go off on a tangent about their local customs. I
don't complain when they do that, nor have I heard any other
American complain, because what the hell we do the same thing.
The only reason there aren't boring threads about Dutch customs and
dialects is that you are the only Dutchman here. I'll have to
remember that at Thanksgiving dinner as one of the things I'm
thankful for.
--
John Varela
Richard Heathfield
<in reply to, presumably, a Dutchman>
> The only reason there aren't boring threads about Dutch customs and
> dialects is that you are the only Dutchman here. I'll have to
> remember that at Thanksgiving dinner as one of the things I'm
> thankful for.
charming, friendly, warm, and genuine.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Richard Yates
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>On 23/11/17 08:58, Lewis wrote:
>
>> I am constantly surprised by the number of websites that require you to
>> format a phone number:
>>
>> 4155551212 "Phone number is invalid, it must be entered as "(xxx)
>> xxx-xxxx or xxx-xxx-xxxx" which makes me want to find the web monkey
>> responsible and beat him with a aluminum bat.
>
>It's even worse when they say that the format is wrong, but don't tell
>you what format they are expecting. For that I would use a solid wooden bat.
format specified. I sorted these 8406 entries by type. It looks like
parentheses are on the wane. Here are the results:
xxxxxxxxxx => 3924
xxx-xxx-xxxx => 2992
xxx xxx xxxx => 205
xxx.xxx.xxxx => 130
xxx xxx-xxxx => 108
(xxx) xxx-xxxx => 105
(xxx)xxx-xxxx => 56
xxx-xxxxxxx => 23
xxx xxxxxxx => 21
xxxxxxxxx => 18
xxxxxxxxxxx => 13
xxx-xxxx => 5
xxx-xxx-xxx => 4
xxxxxx-xxxx => 4
xxx/xxx-xxxx => 3
xxx xxx xxxx => 2
+x (xxx) xxx-xxxx => 2
xxx- xxx-xxxx => 2
(xxx) xxx xxxx => 2
xxxxxx => 2
x-xxx-xxx-xxxx => 2
xxx => 2
xxx/xxx/xxxx => 2
xxx-xxx-xxxxx => 2
xxx-xx-xxxx => 2
xxx-xxx-xxxx) => 1
xxx!xxx-xxxx => 1
xxx xxx-xxxx => 1
xxx_xxx - xxxx => 1
xxx-xxxx-xxxx => 1
(xxx)xxx xxxx => 1
xxxxxxx => 1
xxx- xxx- xxxx => 1
+xxxxxxxxxxx => 1
+x xxx-xxx-xxxx => 1
xxx,xxx.xxxx => 1
(xx)xxxx-xxxx => 1
xxxxxxxxxxxxx => 1
' x x x x x x x x => 1
xxx_xxx_xxxx => 1
(xxxxxx-xxxx => 1
x(xxx)xxx-xxxx => 1
xxx--xxx-xxxx => 1
xxx#xxxxxxx => 1
xxxx-xxx-xxxx => 1
xxx=xxx=xxxx => 1
xxx*xxx*xxxx => 1
xxx xxxx => 1
xxx xxx xxx => 1
xxx xxx.xxxx => 1
xxx,xxx-xxxx => 1
xxx.xxxxxxx => 1
xxx( xxx-xxxx => 1
x(xxx) xxx-xxxx => 1
xxx)xxx-xxxx => 1
x xxx.xxx.xxxx => 1
xxx-xxx-xxxx- => 1
-xxx-xxx-xxxx => 1
J. J. Lodder
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:27:13 UTC, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >
> > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 5:52:49 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> > > > > On 2017-11-22 01:19:39 +0000, bil...@shaw.ca said:
> > >
> > > > > >> On Monday, March 9, 1998 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-5, David Nebenzahl:
> I don't complain when they do that, nor have I heard any other American
> complain, because what the hell we do the same thing.
> The only reason there aren't boring threads about Dutch customs and
> dialects is that you are the only Dutchman here.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 12:19:15 +1100, Peter Moylan
> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On 23/11/17 08:58, Lewis wrote:
> >
> >> I am constantly surprised by the number of websites that require you to
> >> format a phone number:
> >>
> >> 4155551212 "Phone number is invalid, it must be entered as "(xxx)
> >> xxx-xxxx or xxx-xxx-xxxx" which makes me want to find the web monkey
> >> responsible and beat him with a aluminum bat.
> >
> >It's even worse when they say that the format is wrong, but don't tell
> >you what format they are expecting. For that I would use a solid wooden bat.
>
> A website I manage has volunteers enter their phone numbers with no
> format specified. I sorted these 8406 entries by type. It looks like
> parentheses are on the wane. Here are the results:
>
> xxxxxxxxxx => 3924
In other words, it's a mess.
In Europe it is a mess too,
with different countries doing it differently.
But at least within countries it's fairly consistent.
Perhaps the best is France, where it is
xx xx xx xx xx,
or
xxxxxxxxxx,
with no parenthesis ever,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> On 23/11/17 19:56, John Varela wrote:
>
> <in reply to, presumably, a Dutchman>
>
> > The only reason there aren't boring threads about Dutch customs and
> > dialects is that you are the only Dutchman here. I'll have to
> > remember that at Thanksgiving dinner as one of the things I'm
> > thankful for.
>
> I have not met many Dutch people, but those I /have/ met have been
> charming, friendly, warm, and genuine.
Jan
bosod...@gmail.com
> A friend is working on a book, and was told by the publisher that all phone
> numbers in the book (there are many) should NOT have parentheses around the
> area code. My friend isn't sure, but this strikes me as odd, and if not wrong,
> at least out of step with standard practice (in the U.S.). I'd like to hear
> what others have to say about this.
>
> Further question: if you use parens around an area code, what if the phone
> number itself if inside parentheses?
>
> I know there are now lots of cutesy, trendy ways to display phone numbers; my
> vote for the most precious and silly is using "dots" between parts of the
> number. This effect reaches its full force when the numbers are widely spaced
> out; just imagine this at the bottom of a glitzy real-estate ad in the
> newspaper, in a fancy and barely-readable font:
>
> p h o n e 4 1 5 . 3 2 8 . 7 7 7 7
Peter Moylan
> I have long since abandoned the use of parentheses in phone numbers.
> Some on-line forms explicitly ask that no parentheses be used. I
> just type the numbers with no break points, the same way I do when
> typing into a phone.
code here always starts with 0, but if you're dialling from outside the
country then the 0 has to be dropped. For example, a NSW phone number
has the form
+61 (02) NNNN NNNN
and the rules are
-- if you're dialling from within the state, you just dial NNNN NNNN
-- if you're dialling from another state, you dial 02 NNNN NNNN
-- if you're calling from outside the country, you use your international
access code, followed by 61 2 NNNN NNNN.
It would help foreign callers if the parentheses went around the 0,
rather than around the 02, but that would be less helpful to interstate
callers.
Peter Moylan
Mark Brader
> code here always starts with 0, but if you're dialling from outside the
> country then the 0 has to be dropped. For example, a NSW phone number
> has the form
> +61 (02) NNNN NNNN
not be combined.
> and the rules are
> -- if you're dialling from within the state, you just dial NNNN NNNN
> -- if you're dialling from another state, you dial 02 NNNN NNNN
> -- if you're calling from outside the country, you use your international
> access code, followed by 61 2 NNNN NNNN.
--
Mark Brader (Douglas R.) Hofstadter's Law:
Toronto "It always takes longer than you expect, even
m...@vex.net when you take into account Hofstadter's Law."
Garrett Wollman
>Parentheses are highly desirable in Australian phone numbers. An area
>code here always starts with 0, but if you're dialling from outside the
>country then the 0 has to be dropped. For example, a NSW phone number
>has the form
> +61 (02) NNNN NNNN
rest of the E.164 rules (by including parentheses and a domestic
access code).
When given the opportunity, I normally fill in forms asking for my
number in E.164 format (+1 NPA NXX XXXX). Most US businesses still
don't understand it, however, and reject that with "invalid format".
Some try to be "smart" and have a drop-down menu with country codes,
but then list +1 under fourteen or so different countries that all
share it. I have one vendor that accepts the country code but then
decides it corresponds to "United States minor outlying islands"
rather than "United States of America" -- I think this is the result
of some broken database that attempts to localize country names by
cross-referencing with an ISO 3166-2 country-code. (The former is ISO
3166-2 code "UM", and the "full name" also comes first in a
case-sensitive sort.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
wol...@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Garrett Wollman
>A website I manage has volunteers enter their phone numbers with no
>format specified. I sorted these 8406 entries by type. It looks like
>parentheses are on the wane. Here are the results:
(assuming I can recognize the input format with a regular expression),
but there were too many unparsable numbers in the database when I
inherited it to enforce a database constraint that all numbers be in
E.164. So ocasionally if someone edits an old record, they'll get an
error saving a non-phone-number update because the phone number format
wasn't recognized. (Known formats are renormalized at update time.)
Richard Yates
childhood home, and two of the three call-in numbers for the talk
radio show on WCAU in Philadelphia circa 1967.
Kerr-Mudd,John
news:kbde1dl17gp4aa526...@4ax.com:
Paul Wolff
they might genuinely object to that.
--
Paul
Bart Dinnissen
wrote:
>John Varela <newl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> The only reason there aren't boring threads about Dutch customs and
>> dialects is that you are the only Dutchman here.
>
>Really? Don't think so.
>
>Jan
--
Bart Dinnissen
Katy Jennison
--
Katy Jennison
Lewis
can use seven digits to call, but nowhere I've seen in a decade or more.
--
Well… sometimes I have the feeling that I can do crystal meth, but then
I think, mmmm… better not.
Lewis
that our phone number when we first moved to Denver had been RACE-7600
before being normalized as 722-7600 when I had it. It is the number I
remember best, even though we only had it for... maybe 5 years?
--
'I think, if you want thousands, you've got to fight for one.'
Lazar Beshkenadze
>
> >. I've never before heard
> >of anyone routinely using 10 digits for a local call.
>
> As of a few weeks ago, it became optional here. In several months it
> will be mandatory. And just to confuse things further, we are not
> supposed to dial the "1" first for things within our own area code
> (although you can, but you might incur a long distance charge).
When I lived in Toronto which has two local area codes I had to use 10 digits without the '1'. I specificaly tried to prepend the 10 digits with the '1' - no additional costs.
Lazar Beshkenadze
> Mark Baker wrote:
>
> > My answer is entirely useless for you.
>
> Wrong assumption on your part: while it doesn't address the question I asked,
> it is nonetheless quite useful to me, as I'm working on a project which
> involves international phone numbers. Nobody around here seems to have a clue
> (or care, for that matter) how these numbers should be formatted; now I do.
If you are interested in Russia the standard way is:
+7 (495) 555-55-55 - Russia's internetional code and one of the area codes in Moscow
8 (495) 555-55-55 - We use 8 to inicate a long distance code inside Russia
You _have_ to dial 11 digits (including the '8') when making a local call in Moscow so the above is standard for Moscow as well.
In all the other cities you need neither the area code nore the "8".
I hate when they do not parenthesise the area code or leave out the dashes but sometimes they fail to meet my expectations:
http://kremlin.ru/contacts
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> вторник, 10 марта 1998 г., 11:00:00 UTC+3 пользователь David Nebenzahl написал:
>> Mark Baker wrote:
>>
>>> My answer is entirely useless for you.
>>
>> Wrong assumption on your part: while it doesn't address the question I asked,
>> it is nonetheless quite useful to me, as I'm working on a project which
>> involves international phone numbers. Nobody around here seems to have a clue
>> (or care, for that matter) how these numbers should be formatted; now I do.
>
> If you are interested in Russia the standard way is:
>
> +7 (495) 555-55-55 - Russia's internetional
that [æ] in English ("short a") sounds like э, whereas we think that э
sounds like [e] ("short e").
> code and one of the area codes in Moscow
>
> 8 (495) 555-55-55 - We use 8 to inicate a long distance code inside Russia
>
> You _have_ to dial 11 digits (including the '8') when making a local
> call in Moscow so the above is standard for Moscow as well.
two pairs define the location you need to include them even if you're
phoning next door.
> In all the other cities you need neither the area code nore the "8".
>
> I hate when they do not parenthesise the area code or leave out the
> dashes but sometimes they fail to meet my expectations:
>
> http://kremlin.ru/contacts
athel
Lazar Beshkenadze
>
> Maybe just a typo, or maybe an illustration of the Russian conviction
> that [æ] in English ("short a") sounds like э, whereas we think that э
> sounds like [e] ("short e").
My command of the English spelling is not that bad. You can check it here:
http://spelling-bee.com
My name on that site is Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Thank you.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> пятница, 24 ноября 2017 г., 19:15:47 UTC+3 пользователь Athel
> Cornish-Bowden написал:
>>> +7 (495) 555-55-55 - Russia's internetional
>>
>> Maybe just a typo, or maybe an illustration of the Russian conviction>
>> that [æ] in English ("short a") sounds like э, whereas we think that э>
>> sounds like [e] ("short e").
>
> Not a typo - just an error. When I do not write in English for a day I
> start to make silly mistakes as yesterday's 'here' for 'hear' and
> 'cluster's' for 'clusters'. Usually I see them later but still love to
> be corrected.
"their" and "they're", even from people who know perfectly well which
is which.
> My command of the English spelling is not that bad. You can check it here:
>
> http://spelling-bee.com
>
> My name on that site is Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
>
> Thank you.
athel
Peter T. Daniels
> On 2017-11-24 15:40:22 +0000, Lazar Beshkenadze said:
> > +7 (495) 555-55-55 - Russia's internetional
>
> Maybe just a typo, or maybe an illustration of the Russian conviction
> that [æ] in English ("short a") sounds like э, whereas we think that э
> sounds like [e] ("short e").
but could only have been written by someone without the foggiest idea of what
a phoneme is.
Jerry Friedman
> In message <51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-f54mqrHxQOPe@localhost> John Varela <newl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 19:50:55 UTC, David Kleinecke
>> <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Locally on the landline it is not necessary to use the area code.
>
>> That depends on where you are. In the Washington, DC metro area ten
>> digits are required for local calls. The same will be true of other
>> large metro areas.
>
> Not just large metro areas. There may still be parts of the US where you
> can use seven digits to call, but nowhere I've seen in a decade or more.
describe either as a large metro area.
Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure you can use seven digits in the
Cleveland metro area, population 2.06 million (2016 estimate). I didn't
know there were places where you need all ten digits.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
> пятница, 24 ноября 2017 г., 19:15:47 UTC+3 пользователь Athel Cornish-Bowden написал:
>>> +7 (495) 555-55-55 - Russia's internetional
>>
>> Maybe just a typo, or maybe an illustration of the Russian conviction
>> that [æ] in English ("short a") sounds like э, whereas we think that э
>> sounds like [e] ("short e").
>
> Not a typo - just an error. When I do not write in English for a day I start to make silly mistakes as yesterday's 'here' for 'hear' and 'cluster's' for 'clusters'. Usually I see them later but still love to be corrected.
> My command of the English spelling is not that bad. You can check it here:
...
--
Jerry Friedman
J. J. Lodder
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> posted:
> >Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 23/11/17 19:56, John Varela wrote:
> >>
> >> <in reply to, presumably, a Dutchman>
> >>
> >> > The only reason there aren't boring threads about Dutch customs and
> >> > dialects is that you are the only Dutchman here. I'll have to
> >> > remember that at Thanksgiving dinner as one of the things I'm
> >> > thankful for.
> >>
> >> I have not met many Dutch people, but those I /have/ met have been
> >> charming, friendly, warm, and genuine.
> >
> >Being genuine is the trouble with them,
> >
> I'd substitute "frank" for "genuine".
> But as they aren't from Frankrijk,
> they might genuinely object to that.
A NL->E dictionary gives frank -> straight ahead ; open ; straight on ,
and of course also franc.
As for history: the Dutch are not from 'Frankrijk'
the Franks, hence French, are from the Low Countries.
The Francs were a Germanic tribe having its core region
in the Southern Netherlands, Belgium, and Northern (Flemish) France.
The first Frankish kings are buried in Doornik,
nowadays Tournai, Belgium,
(just south of the present language border)
which was at the centre of their region of power.
Still more generally: The English have an age-old enmity
with 'them Froggies', up to WWI.
The Dutch have nothing of the kind,
Jan
Lazar Beshkenadze
>
> > My command of the English spelling is not that bad. You can check it here:
>
> That should be "My command of English spelling".
J. J. Lodder
> On 2017-11-24 15:40:22 +0000, Lazar Beshkenadze said:
>
> >>
> >>> My answer is entirely useless for you.
> >>
> >> Wrong assumption on your part: while it doesn't address the question I
> >> asked, it is nonetheless quite useful to me, as I'm working on a
> >> project which involves international phone numbers. Nobody around here
> >> seems to have a clue (or care, for that matter) how these numbers
> >> should be formatted; now I do.
> >
> > If you are interested in Russia the standard way is:
> >
> > +7 (495) 555-55-55 - Russia's internetional
>
> Maybe just a typo, or maybe an illustration of the Russian conviction
> >
> > code and one of the area codes in Moscow
> >
> > 8 (495) 555-55-55 - We use 8 to inicate a long distance code inside Russia
> >
> > You _have_ to dial 11 digits (including the '8') when making a local
> > call in Moscow so the above is standard for Moscow as well.
>
> In France you put the ten digits in five pairs, and although the first
> two pairs define the location you need to include them even if you're
> phoning next door.
so you just have to get used to their peculiar ways
of counting to a hundred,
Jan
Paul Wolff
>> On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> posted:
>> >Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>> >> On 23/11/17 19:56, John Varela wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <in reply to, presumably, a Dutchman>
>> >>
>> >> > The only reason there aren't boring threads about Dutch customs and
>> >> > dialects is that you are the only Dutchman here. I'll have to
>> >> > remember that at Thanksgiving dinner as one of the things I'm
>> >> > thankful for.
>> >>
>> >> I have not met many Dutch people, but those I /have/ met have been
>> >> charming, friendly, warm, and genuine.
>> >
>> >Being genuine is the trouble with them,
>> >
>> I'd substitute "frank" for "genuine".
>
>The word was not my choice.
>
>> But as they aren't from Frankrijk,
>> they might genuinely object to that.
>
>Why? Dutch 'frank' is more or less equivalent to E. 'franc'.
France, the Dutch might object that they don't come from the realm of
the Franks, and therefore shouldn't be called "frank", and this would be
a genuine objection.
I can see that my wordplay concerning frank and genuine doesn't survive
the journey across the North Sea.
>A NL->E dictionary gives frank -> straight ahead ; open ; straight on ,
>and of course also franc.
>
>As for history: the Dutch are not from 'Frankrijk'
>the Franks, hence French, are from the Low Countries.
>The Francs were a Germanic tribe having its core region
>in the Southern Netherlands, Belgium, and Northern (Flemish) France.
>
>The first Frankish kings are buried in Doornik,
>nowadays Tournai, Belgium,
>(just south of the present language border)
>which was at the centre of their region of power.
>
>Still more generally: The English have an age-old enmity
>with 'them Froggies', up to WWI.
>The Dutch have nothing of the kind,
Nederlanden, and would you not count them as Froggies? They eat snails,
after all.
<https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escargot_de_Bourgogne_(mets)>
--
Paul
Bart Dinnissen
wrote:
One.
--
Bart Dinnissen
John Varela
--
John Varela
John Varela
> On 23/11/17 19:56, John Varela wrote:
>
> <in reply to, presumably, a Dutchman>
>
> > remember that at Thanksgiving dinner as one of the things I'm
> > thankful for.
>
> I have not met many Dutch people, but those I /have/ met have been
> charming, friendly, warm, and genuine.
traffic control facility there. I found the same thing true about
not only the engineers and technicians but also the air traffic
controllers. This was in contrast to the US, where the controllers
have a nasty union. I should add that I worked with lots of
controllers at the FAA headquarters, and most of them were fine; it
was the ones in the field who could be difficult.
--
John Varela
John Varela
<lazar.be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> , 10 1998 ., 11:00:00 UTC+3 Truly Donovan :
> > >. I've never before heard
> > >of anyone routinely using 10 digits for a local call.
> >
> > As of a few weeks ago, it became optional here. In several months it
> > will be mandatory. And just to confuse things further, we are not
> > supposed to dial the "1" first for things within our own area code
> > (although you can, but you might incur a long distance charge).
>
> When I lived in Toronto which has two local area codes I had to use 10 digits without the '1'. I specificaly tried to prepend the 10 digits with the '1' - no additional costs.
were still using only seven digits for local dialing and phone
service was still regulated. There were three area codes in the DC
area, one each for DC, Maryland, and Virginia. Our son could dial us
long distance at our home 703 area code, or at either of the other
area codes. If he dialed 703, he paid long distance fees at the
in-state rate, set by the Virginia Corporation Commission. If he
dialed us with one of the other area codes, he paid the interstate
rate set by the Federal Communications Commission. It was cheaper to
dial us at the FCC rate.
Of course there is no longer a charge for long distance.
--
John Varela
Garrett Wollman
>On 11/24/17 7:14 AM, Lewis wrote:
>> Not just large metro areas. There may still be parts of the US where you
>> can use seven digits to call, but nowhere I've seen in a decade or more.
>
>I live in one such place and work in another. No one would ever
>describe either as a large metro area.
>Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure you can use seven digits in the
>Cleveland metro area, population 2.06 million (2016 estimate). I didn't
>know there were places where you need all ten digits.
cell phones everywhere.