# Help with writing numbers as words **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 5, 2010, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-writing-numbers-as-words/549298 "2010-08-05T17:33:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-writing-numbers-as-words/549298/101 "2010-08-09T18:32:32Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > I’ve always thought the ‘come on’ or ‘oh, come on’ are two of the most ‘interesting’ ways to engage in a debate. > > It was meant as a light-hearted, colloquial, off-hand comment, not an intellectually rigorous point in a debate. Duh. (\<- also not meant for debate points.) Yes, your use there wasn’t really what I was thinking of since you actually stated your point. (So I suppose I could be accused of an attempted hi-jack.) I was more thinking of people who respond to an argument with ‘Oh, come on’ and nothing else. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-writing-numbers-as-words/549298/102 "2010-08-09T18:40:02Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > > [@pulykamell](#): > > > > It was meant as a light-hearted, colloquial, off-hand comment, not an intellectually rigorous point in a debate. Duh. (\<- also not meant for debate points.) > > Yes, your use there wasn’t really what I was thinking of since you actually stated your point. (So I suppose I could be accused of an attempted hi-jack.) > > I was more thinking of people who respond to an argument with ‘Oh, come on’ and nothing else. Fair enough. I also suspect **ascenray** knew he was going to be called on it, and his response was slightly cheeky (with the robot comment), so I figured better to reply in kind than compose a more formal rejoinder. But, anyhow, I do think the underlying question of American usage is interesting. I suspect **ascenray** may be correct that the “and” form is more common in everyday speech (and perhaps even formal speech) than the “and”-less forms. I’m curious to see if the usage varies by region or demographic. However, I can’t seem to find any formalized studies on this. All I know is I use the “and” form in rapid speech, the “and”-less form in deliberate speech, and also the “and”-less form in written form (like when I’m writing checks. I have _never_ written a check as “one hundred and twenty-five 00/100 dollars” but “one hundred twenty-five (and) 00/100 dollars” (the “and” in parenthesis being used about 10% of the time according to my check copies.) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-writing-numbers-as-words/549298/103 "2010-08-10T01:17:20Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > > [@DrDeth](#): > > > > In any case, you’re even wrong about British English. According to Oxford (_Oxford Companion to the English Language_), either way is Ok. BUT: "_Most house styles and editors aim for consistency in whichever forms they have chosen"_. So, you have been wrong all along, it’s not even the preferred usage in Br E. Ok, **Indistinguishable**?😛 > > [Ahem](http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-NUMBER.html). I don’t know if you’re being disingenuous by not providing the cite and the context for your quote (which deals not at all with the issue of “and”), or whether you didn’t read on: > > > [@](#): > > > > Large numbers such as 118,985 are usually given as figures; when spoken, there is one significant difference between British and American usage: **BrE always has and after hundred** , as in one hundred and eighteen thousand, nine hundred and eighty-five, while AmE generally does not, as in one hundred eighteen thousand, nine hundred eighty-five. > > Emphasis mine. I was citing an actual book, you know those things with pages? Would Page 715 help? However, you cite does bring up a point that Oxford also mentions- that it is never common usuage to write out any number such as 118,985. Thus, neither AmE or BrE would have or not have a “and” in there as in neither case would it be proper to write out the entire number. Thus, it is not BrE to _write out_ a number that long with a “and” in it even by your cite. In any case, your cite simply proves me right- with any such “rule” as this, there are bound to be different guides that have differing opinions. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-writing-numbers-as-words/549298/104 "2010-08-10T01:20:03Z")
That is tremendously disingenuous… The cite clearly supports **These are my own pants** ’s assertion that the “and” is mandatory in British speech in number-names (not as a rule handed down from above, but just a fact about the way British people speak). Everything else is irrelevant. The thread has always been about how to express numbers as words, not how to write them as strings of digits, so that’s a particularly lame cop-out. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-writing-numbers-as-words/549298/105 "2010-08-10T01:23:00Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > > [@DrDeth](#): > > > > It’s very rude to keep saying “you don;t understand me” when all we are doing is disagreeing. I can understand you perfectly without agreeing. > > > > It doesn’t matter what dialect of English you are talking about, there are simply no rules at the level of which you speak. Let me say that one more time- there is no such rule . . . > > It seems to me that you are disagreeing. You are disagreeing about what is meant by “rule”. > > There is no “rule”, in the sense of prescriptive law, that users of British English must, e.g., spell “labour” with a ‘u’. There is no sanction for omitting the ‘u’. > > Yet we can say that, as a rule, users of British English _do_ spell “labour” with a ‘u’. Occasionally, perhaps, they won’t, but we would tend identify that as (a) a mistake, or (b) a conscious and intentional departure from the customary spelling, adopted to make some point. > So, what **These are my own pants** is saying, it seems to me, is that as a rule (in this sense), users of British English use “and” in, e.g., “one hundred and eleven”. FWIW, I think his observation is correct. Others might disagree, but I don’t see why anybody would object to his describing this practice as a “rule”. . Like I said, he could have said that it was the _only common usage in BrE_. (Not a rule, but a “usage”, and the two have important differences).However, Oxford has proven him wrong, that usage being always in place is no longer true, just like BrE has now mostly conformed to the AmE definition of Billion". I suspect that at one time, the “and” may have been the only common usage in BeE, but like with “Billion” BrE is changing more to go along with AmE. In other words, he may have well been correct a couple of decades ago. Languages change. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-writing-numbers-as-words/549298/106 "2010-08-10T01:26:57Z")
How has Oxford proven him wrong? The section you referred to says this: > [@](#): > > A spoken number is a WORD or phrase in a language, but a written number may be realized as either a word or phrase or a symbol or groups of symbols, usually a figure such as 1, 2, 12, 21. Written words are generally used for low numbers, from one to ten or twelve (as in the phrases three blind mice, the seven wonders of the world, and the twelve signs of the Zodiac). They are also often used for numbers up to 100 (with hyphenation for compound forms such as twenty-one and eighty-three) and for large round figures as in a thousand years and four million visitors a year. Words may or may not be used to express percentages, which may be given as ten per cent, 10 per cent, or 10% depending on house style or personal preference. Most house styles and editors aim for consistency in whichever forms they have chosen. In other words, it says nothing about the use of “and” in number-names; it is only talking about whether to write numbers as strings of digits or to write the words comprising their names. Which is entirely irrelevant to what this thread is about, and entirely irrelevant to what **These are my own pants** has been discussing. The subsequent section which _does_ speak about the use of “and” in number-names clearly and unequivocally supports **These are my own pants** ’ assertion, as **pulykamell** noted. To reiterate: > [@](#): > > When spoken, there is one significant difference between British and American usage: BrE always has and after hundred, as in one hundred and eighteen thousand, nine hundred and eighty-five, while AmE generally does not, as in one hundred eighteen thousand, nine hundred eighty-five. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-writing-numbers-as-words/549298/107 "2010-08-10T01:33:58Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > > [@DrDeth](#): > > > > It’s very rude to keep saying “you don;t understand me” when all we are doing is disagreeing. I can understand you perfectly without agreeing. > > > > It doesn’t matter what dialect of English you are talking about, there are simply no rules at the level of which you speak. Let me say that one more time- there is no such rule. > > You can say it as often as you like but that doesn’t make it true. 😉 > > It rather depends on what you mean by a rule but I’ve never heard anyone (until reading you) deny than language has rules. Certainly those learning English ask about ‘rules’ such as this. Because they don’t want to end up saying something completely off the ceiling such as ‘three thousand and one hundred twenty three’ 😃 > > > [@](#): > > > > In any case, you’re even wrong about British English. According to Oxford (_Oxford Companion to the English Language_), either way is Ok. BUT: "_Most house styles and editors aim for consistency in whichever forms they have chosen"_. So, you have been wrong all along, it’s not even the preferred usage in Br E. Ok, **Indistinguishable**? > > I’m not sure why you believe that the OCEL restricts itself to British English. > > I’ve never heard any English omit the and - and it’s extremely noticeable. If I had to make a guess I’d say that about 20-25% of the times I hear an American say a qualifying number they omit the ‘and’. There are rules, as Poly pointed out, those _rules_ have to do with ease of understanding. There are also \*usages, \*which many often think of as “rules”. They are not rules, they change fairly frequently, and differ a great deal by area and dialect. A usage is not a rule. It’s simply the most common way of use. OCEL certainly does not restrict itself to BrE. However, they often discuss the difference between BrE and AmE. In the edition I have, they have said both usages occur in BrE. Note that have a fairly long section about “illion” numbers, discussing the now outdated BrE usage of “billion”. There are different versions of BrE of course, and it is probable that in at least a few “and” is still is the only common usage. Perhaps in the one that **These are my own pants** speaks. But no longer in BrE as a whole. In any case, a usage is not a rule. It’s a usage (which the OCEL has a very long section on, btw). ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-writing-numbers-as-words/549298/108 "2010-08-10T01:37:09Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > How has Oxford proven him wrong? The section you referred to says this: > The subsequent section which _does_ speak about the use of “and” in number-names clearly and unequivocally supports **These are my own pants** ’ assertion, as **pulykamell** noted. To reiterate: > > > [@](#): > > > > When spoken, there is one significant difference between British and American usage: BrE always has and after hundred, as in one hundred and eighteen thousand, nine hundred and eighty-five, while AmE generally does not, as in one hundred eighteen thousand, nine hundred eighty-five. Many of those words appear exactly like that in my Edition. However, my edition does not have that quoted section like that at all. It sez more or less what I have said. In any case, note that term “usage”. \*\*Usage is not a rule. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-writing-numbers-as-words/549298/109 "2010-08-10T01:41:07Z")
Usage provides the only real rules… Certainly, all **pants** meant by “rule” was in terms of categorically adhered to facts of usage, as they themself have repeatedly explained. If the version you have makes a different claim about the status of “and” in number-names in British English, very well. But that claim is not in the excerpt you originally quoted as saying so. Could you transcribe the relevant portion? ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-writing-numbers-as-words/549298/110 "2010-08-10T01:52:31Z")
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:66, topic:549298”] For the number “2,002,102”, how many “ands” would you include? … - Two million two thousand one hundred and two? [/QUOTE] Common usage in NZ English. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-writing-numbers-as-words/549298/111 "2010-08-10T04:15:09Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I was citing an actual book, you know those things with pages? Would Page 715 help? Yes. When citing a book source, please do give a full citation, so we can play along and check your sources for ourselves, should we have them handy or feel like going to the library. Anyhow, everything I have to say is covered. I find it very surprising that your version of the Oxford Companion has a completely different rule to what I was able to dig up, but, hey, I’m used to the AP Stylebook waffling on things from one edition to the next, so who knows. At any rate, a citation would be help us sort out the source of confusion. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-writing-numbers-as-words/549298/112 "2010-08-10T05:38:50Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Usage provides the only real rules… Certainly, all **pants** meant by “rule” was in terms of categorically adhered to facts of usage, as they themself have repeatedly explained. > > If the version you have makes a different claim about the status of “and” in number-names in British English, very well. But that claim is not in the excerpt you originally quoted as saying so. Could you transcribe the relevant portion? The paragraph you quoted does not appear in my edition. But it matters not. I cheerfully accept your cite, it’s obviously more up to date than mine, at least 6 years. It also can be easily quoted. I also accept your cite as your cite 100% proves my point. “When spoken, there is one significant difference between British and American **usage** :…” (bolding mine). Note that I accepted it may very well be the common usage (see post 95 and others) “I_f you wish to say that it’s the most common usage in GB, then fine. But there’s no such_ [B”]rule".\*\* " But even after Polycarp explained carefully and clearly what a “rule” was in English, **These are my own pants** continued to insist that we were wrong, that it was a “RULE”. Thus, even though you attempt to defend **These are my own pants** by inferring that you somehow know what he “meant”, he continued to insist upon the term “rule” even after the difference was explained. So, he’s wrong- there is no such **rule.** As for your claim "_The thread has always been about how to express numbers as words, not how to write them as strings of digits, so that’s a particularly lame cop-out."_ in response to my claim "_However, you cite does bring up a point that Oxford also mentions- that it is never common usuage to write out any number such as 118,985. Thus, neither AmE or BrE would have or not have a “and” in there as in neither case would it be proper to write out the entire number. Thus, it is not BrE to write out a number that long with a “and” in it even by your cite."_ I wish to point out the OP _“Help with writing numbers as words”_ & “it would be written as…” & “how would you write out”. Thus the thread is about how to \*\*WRITE OUT \*\*a number, and your own cite makes it clear “1. Written words are generally used for low numbers, from one to ten or twelve (as in the phrases three blind mice, the seven wonders of the world, and the twelve signs of the Zodiac). They are also often used for numbers up to 100 (with hyphenation for compound forms such as twenty-one and eighty-three) and for large round figures as in a thousand years and four million visitors a year.” and thus in BrE **These are my own pants** answer of “seven million one hundred and forty-five thousand and seventy one” is incorrect as according to your very own cite, it is not common usage to ever write out a number like that. So, if we are arguing \*usage \*instead of “rules”, still wrong. Although BrE _usage_ may well include a extra “and” in writing out a number, it does not do so in the case of “seven million one hundred and forty-five thousand and seventy one”, which is clearly improper usage in BrE **or** AmE. So, it’s not a “rule”. Usage provides no rules. Polycarp was correct when he explained the ‘rules’ of English Grammar. Nor is it common usage, either BrE or AmE- \*using your own cite. \* ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-writing-numbers-as-words/549298/113 "2010-08-10T05:42:47Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Thus the thread is about how to \*\*WRITE OUT \*\*a number, and your own cite makes it clear “1. Written words are generally used for low numbers, from one to ten or twelve (as in the phrases three blind mice, the seven wonders of the world, and the twelve signs of the Zodiac). They are also often used for numbers up to 100 (with hyphenation for compound forms such as twenty-one and eighty-three) and for large round figures as in a thousand years and four million visitors a year.” and thus in BrE **These are my own pants** answer of “seven million one hundred and forty-five thousand and seventy one” is incorrect as according to your very own cite, it is not common usage to ever write out a number like that. So the answer to the OP’s question “Would the number 7,145,071 be written ‘seven million one hundred and forty five thousand seventy one’ (it’s the 0 in the hundred place that has me confused)” should’ve been “As ‘7,145,071’”, **pants** going wrong the moment he started with “seven…”? The answer to “Finally, how would you write out 365,865,012,159,983? and 365,865,312,159,983?” should’ve been “As ‘365,865,012,159,983’ and ‘365,865,312,159,983’”? I think the OP’s title made clear enough what he was looking for and what we were talking about. I maintain you are continuing to grasp at straws. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-writing-numbers-as-words/549298/114 "2010-08-10T05:50:14Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > ] > So the answer to the OP’s question “Would the number 7,145,071 be written ‘seven million one hundred and forty five thousand seventy one’ (it’s the 0 in the hundred place that has me confused).” should’ve been “No, the correct way to write that number out is as ‘7,145,071’”, **pants** going wrong the moment he started with “seven…”? According to what your cite sez about common usage, yes. If the answer had been "well, normally large number liek that are not written out but in BrE the word “and” is usually inserted after “hundred” when the number is spoken. The OP made it clear he wanted \*\*written out. \*\* He only said it three times. It also seems about right to me, since as a gov’t lackey we were taught to write out any number under 13 if it occured in text. Now, that of course is the preferred \*style. \* Style being whatever your employers, etc prefers. Of course, in that sense, it is a rule of sorts, but one with limited scope. For a while, one newspaper insisted upon “tho” and so forth instead of “though”. It made enough splash so that “tho” still is accepted as a informal or even alternate spelling. Again, I accept your cite, and in _spoken_ BrE, it appears some extra “ands” are thrown around in there… in common usage. ;-p ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2010, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-writing-numbers-as-words/549298/115 "2010-08-10T05:50:24Z")
_I was using this post to fix something in my last post that got messed up in editing, but you already quoted a non-messed-up version, so no need…_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-with-writing-numbers-as-words/549298.md?page=5)