That was CookingWithGas, not me. (Your quote links to the wrong post; I assume you made a mistake editing the nested quote out of the post you meant to quote)
Nope, we started using billion for 1,000,000,000 when it became common for sums of money and trillion has gone the same way.
Generally speaking the only time you’re going to use trillion is when talking about money - obviously there’s the odd exception - so it makes a lot more sense to use it rather than talking about thousands of billions.
I’m glad you said that because I would have sworn I’d commonly heard Americans using ‘and’.
Rather like omitting ‘of’ after ‘couple’ some do and some don’t.
I don’t know if most say it or not, but it’s certainly common in the US. Here’s a trailer for 101 Dalmatians. I know for me, at any rate, it’s more natural putting the “and” in it.
One older computer stored images using forty thousand nine hunder and sixty memory units, leadin to the expression ‘A picture is worth A000 words’.
Indistinguishable, you seem to be saying that someone could read
“Examples of perfect squares are sixteen, eighty-one, one hundred twenty-five, and one hundred forty-four.”
and think that it means
“Examples of perfect squares are 16, 80, 1, 100, 20, 5, and 144.”
I fail to understand how anyone could read what Polycarp wrote and assume that it meant what you wrote. Unless that person assumes that Polycarp has totally screwed up his punctuation. But then, if the person assumes, we all now what happens!
I was thinking in terms of spoken language, not written language. In written language, the punctuation is enough to disambiguate in both of Polycarp’s examples.
My point is that whatever clarification standardizing on “and”-less number names can offer in such contrived situations is of only extraordinarily minor significance. (Indeed, I feel it is of no genuine significance at all…)
Yes, witness my aforementioned Texas math teacher insisting on it. But I’ve actually had discussions with Brit editors and writers over here who have asked me why Americans don’t use the “and,” so they’ve obviously noticed a lack of Americans doing it. I honestly don’t use it myself.
If they add nothing, take them out.
Why? There’s no prize for scraping with the bare minimum number of words.
Because.
'Cause.
[quote=“Indistinguishable, post:19, topic:549298”]
That’s just the kind of thinking that lost us China 
I am pretty sure the Britain, like America, and unlike France, has no legally empowered National Grammar board that decides such things.
In either case, the “and” is common usage and does not detract from understanding, so it’s OK. Unless your employer has ruled you- at work- must follow some private guide of some sort.
Dimensionally, the word “and” could be eliminated in all of the above cases with a colloquial or understood syntax and sequence. Sort of like the standard GPS coordinates. The “and” could also be superfluous and confusing in some structures…
My name isn’t Hemingway.
Don’t you mean, “Why? No prize scraping with min words”?
Woot, just in time. “And” is used for the last two digits only if the last two digits are the tens place, the ones place, or cents…IF it is being spoken. In writing, no “and” is used if the number is over 2 digits long, at 3 digits or more, the number is usually written numerically:
1,100 = one thousand, one hundred.
1,011 = one thousand and eleven.
1,110 = one thousand, one hundred, and ten.
$1000.10 = one thousand dollars and ten cents.
1,111 = eleven hundred and eleven, up to 2000.
Exceptions:
Years
Money without cents (although many will use it, e.g. one thousand and eleven dollars.)
Numbers less than 100.
Hundreds system of thousands (e.g. thirteen hundred) where “hundred” is dropped, (e.g. 9999 = ninety nine, ninety nine.)
I did not find this in a book, I just use this rule and have found it to be accurate of all examples of use I have found.
C’mon you’re wasting your time with that post, dropping the ‘and’ is unheard of in British English.
Languages do have rules, there can dialetical differences in these rules and how stringently they are applied. In this case in British English though you have a very strong rule about the use of the ‘and’ in numbers.
Arrgh. It should read “under 3 digits” not “over 2 digits.” 