Europe has it the other way. Is it a convention that has been changed and, like the Fahrenheit scale, the U.S. is stuck in the dark ages?
Could you post an example? I don’t know anyone that uses a comma in place of a decimal point unless it’s a typo.
American: 120,00 one hundred and twenty thousand
European: 120.000 one hundred and twenty thousand
Could you provide an example? Could you be confusing something like 4,321 (four thousand, three thousand twenty one) with 4.321 (four and three hundred twenty one thousanths). I have never seen a comma used as a decimal point except for some early software programs that would not allow anything after a period.
The convention in America is 12,345.67 while other places it’s 12.345,67. (Man, that looks wierd. Do I have that right?)
And
American: 0.23 twenty-three hundredths
European: 0,23 twenty-three hundredths
<< American: 0.23 twenty-three hundredths
European: 0,23 twenty-three hundredths >>
I believe that’s continental European, and the notation is not consistent. The Swiss (IIRC) use 1’000’000 for a million, for instance, where the French use 1.000.000 and the Americans and British use 1,000,000.
Just as I thought, you are confused. A comma when used when there are 4 or more digits is correct and proper. I would consider 120.000 as one hundred twenty point zero zero zero. An example here swaps the decimal point and comma when used in Spanish numbers. Probably because it is all I have ever used, I find the American method much simpler and easy to use.
And your American example should be 120,000. There is always 3 digits after the comma.
Not to start another F° vs. C° debate, but I find our (the American) system more logical. The comma is used to separate groups of things (ones, tens, hundreds) while the period is used to demarcate the end of whole numbers and the start of fractional numbers.
IOW, just like in writing words the comma doesn’t actually change the meaning (1000000 is still undeniably one million) but the period/decimal point does.
That is, it separates thousands, millions, billions etc. into groups of ones, tens & hundreds.
:eek:
Even morecomplicated than I thought?
Right. Sorry.
Ah, but the question is which is the original.
From a Swiss web site ( http://www.standortschweiz.ch/seco/internet/en/finance/financial_aspects/labor_costs/index.html ), I’ve found that they use the American system.
BTW, how do you put in a link so that you have to click on a word and not the exact title (internet address) of the link?
url="the url"the words you want/url
With the brackets in the appropriate places of course.
Huh?
But how would I get the word that appears in the post in there?
Wouldn’t this just classify the word as a link rather than plain text?
Like this – with, of course, spaces intruded between the brackets and the code that should immediately follow or precede them, so that it will display as an example and not automatically encode:
[ url=“http://www.chefdecuisine.com/salads/TOMATO-CORN%20PASTA%20SALAD.asp” ]recipe for tomato-corn-pasta salad [ /url ]
will display as recipe for tomato-corn-pasta salad
Hard to say. Napier, inventor of the decimal notation we now use, originally used a comma, but later switched to a point. So really both came from the same guy at about the same time.
European numbering usually uses spaces instead of commas - not periods. For instance, the American
1,654,783.09
would be, in France or any of a great many metric countries,
1 654 783,09
In Canadian English, especially newspapers for some reason, you often see a mixed system of using spaces and the decimal point:
1 654 783.09
Confusing, to my eyes.
Well, the spacing is more correct for scientific purposes, but still, what about the original two?
Er, I live in Canada and I’ve always used (for example) 1,234,567.89 or even just 1234567.89