Explain newspaper headlines to me: comma instead of "and"?

Factual Questions
21

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I think it’s probably very similar to the use (or not) of ‘and’ in spoken numbers; “two hundred and sixty five” I understand - “two hundred sixty five” sounds like a list containing two distinct number to me. Not that either is intrinsically superior to the other, of course.
[/QUOTE]
When I was but a sprout in school they stressed that two hundred and sixty five was the wrong way and two hundred sixty five was the correct way.

22

It’s one of the reasons that translating newspaper articles is included in the more advanced classes of serious language instruction. The language in newspapers is universally stilted and difficult to read, and therefore a challenge to non-native speakers.

23

[QUOTE=gazpacho]
When I was but a sprout in school they stressed that two hundred and sixty five was the wrong way and two hundred sixty five was the correct way.
[/QUOTE]
That’s because of where you live.

24

[QUOTE=Omphaloskeptic]
“Saves space,” sources say
[/QUOTE]

Source: Space saved

[QUOTE=jjimm]
It is indeed a peculiarly US habit, but I don’t think it’s particularly space-saving. Our papers seem to do fine using the word “and”; indeed the Guardian’s very excellent styleguide actively opposes the habit:
[/QUOTE]

For many U.S. newspapers, the typesize in headlines is an important style issue, one that trumps many of the style rules followed in the text of articles. And at large typesizes, the difference between and and , is huge. Many newspapers have flat rules: The main headline on the front page shall be no smaller than X points. The secondary headline on the front page shall be no smaller than Y points.

25

I’m sure British newspapers have the same criteria about printed headlines - they have just made different choices on how to achieve it.

Interestingly, though, I just reviewed both the Times and the Guardian online, and there wasn’t a single “and” to be found in any headline. Most headlines dealt with one thing only and didn’t require a conjoiner. Which indicates they may be more simplistic (or more direct).

26

Wouldn’t ‘Answers Simulposted: Lemur Enraged’ be even more correct?

27

[QUOTE=gazpacho]
When I was but a sprout in school they stressed that two hundred and sixty five was the wrong way and two hundred sixty five was the correct way.
[/QUOTE]

I learned the same thing. If I recall correctly, the reasoning was to distinguish “200+65” from “265”. Which are the same, but different. :dubious:

28

[QUOTE=KidScruffy]
I learned the same thing. If I recall correctly, the reasoning was to distinguish “200+65” from “265”. Which are the same, but different. :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
When I was in school they said that the and some how implied a decimal point it was to distinguish between 200.65 and 265. Like how you write checks for three hundred seventy five and 31/100. Not that this explanation is that much better than the one you got.

29

[QUOTE=gazpacho]
When I was in school they said that the and some how implied a decimal point…
[/QUOTE]
I never knew that there was active discouragement from the “British” way of saying it. Interesting, nonetheless.