Everyone, Pants is claiming that it is a descriptive rule about the linguistics of British English that number-names categorically contain “and” (in certain positions). This is a perfectly cromulent sort of thing to claim; I am not well-informed enough to independently be able to verify whether or not that assertion is true, but it’s certainly not the sort of thing you can shoot down with mere armchair ruminations on the general nature of linguistic rules, prescriptivism vs. descriptivism, and so on. The only way to gain data about its truth is through rigorous empirical study of the usage patterns of Britons. And perhaps that has indeed been done. Why is everyone so quick to distrust that These are my own pants knows what he’s talking about?
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.
Do let us take a number(let us take a number under a Million, as there are differences over that, we’ll take 123,456. And, note that in Brit Eng, a Billion was often one million million, or 10 to the power 12)
The rules of English- no matter what dialect- say that :
either: One Hundred twenty-three thousand, four hundred fifty six. OR
One Hundred and twenty-three thousand, four hundred and fifty six.
are legit. Both are 100% understandable, both are in common usage.
What would violate the “rules” is: “fifty six, four hundred, one Hundred twenty-three thousand” as taking the numbers out of ordinal order makes the number very hard to understand.
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?
19 A 7
One Niner Adam Seven
Ahem. 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:
Emphasis mine.
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.
In other words, it true to a degree which makes it meaningful and useful to observe that the British spelling of “labour” contains a ‘u’. And that statement is sufficiently true that, when we observe an exception, we may draw certain conclusions with some degree of reliability. It’s not an abuse of the language to call the statement a “rule”. That, indeed, is where we get the expression “as a rule” to describe a state of affairs which prevails usually, but not invariably. (Unless, of course, American English doesn’t have this sense of “rule”?)
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”. It’s one of the canons that we can use to identify a particular text as British or American; isn’t it one of the primary meanings of the word “rule” that it provides a standard against which we can measure things?
Not too long ago there was a thread in which the subject arose of whether the ‘w’ in “sword” is voiced. A number of contributors said that they voiced the ‘w’, and a number of other said that they did not, but that they had heard it voiced. All of these, without exception, were American (though other Americans said that they did not voice the ‘w’).
I am Irish; the only time I have ever heard the ‘w’ in “sword” voiced is by Americans or by somebody imitating – parodying, to be honest - American speech. I have no hesitation in saying that, as a rule, in British English (and Hiberno-English) the “w” in sword is unvoiced, but that this may not be a rule in all versions of American English. People might disagree with my observation, but I don’t expect them to quibble about whether I am using the word “rule” correctly.
This is clearly misdescriptive of American English. I have never or rarely heard anyone say “a hundred eighty five,” leaving out the “and.”
I would have called it an accurate description, which shows that the issue is regional, or at least dialectical on a smaller scale. It might be by profession, region, dialect, or age, but it varies. I have heard “hundred and eighty-five” rarely enough that it sounds jarring and wrong to me, and I have lived in the US my whole life.
I am not exactly sure how you can make such a blanket statement, especially given that many people here have stated to the contrary. I do think including the “and” is probably the more common form, which would make the word “usually” in the description suspect, but I could not say it with complete confidence. In my experience, I would guess it’s split about 70-30 for “with and” and “without and” forms, but my peer group is a relatively specific subset of the American population, so I wouldn’t be quite so willing to extrapolate it to a population of 300+ million people across a wide swath of geography and language influences. But you may very well be right.
Here’s a Phoenix weather report, full of temps in the 100s. Plenty of examples there of numbers clearly enunciated without the “and.”
Numbers are certainly used commonly enough with and without the “and” in American English, whereas they seem to be exclusively used with the “and” in British English, according to various native speakers here and the Oxford Companion to the English Language. If this is indeed the case (and from the sources thus far it seems to be), it does seem to be a dialectical “rule” for British English to insert the “and” after the “hundred” when speaking numbers.
I simply don’t believe that the contributors in this thread are conveying accurate information about this aspect of American English. I suspect misreporting or misperception of some kind. Or people wishfully thinking that their third-grade grammar teachers really were right. I’d be willing to be persuaded by research data to the contrary, but in those cases when I have heard the “and” omitted in speech, it has stood out as peculiar to my ear. Leaving out the “and” is in my view largely a schoolmarm myth.
Not.
Like I said, you may very well be right (and, if I was forced to bet on it, I’d put the wager on your side), but I think it’s more common to leave out the “and” than you think. When I say numbers, I usually include it, in an elided form like “a hunderd’n five.” When I am enunciating or speaking slowly, I often (I would say usually) drop the “and.” In other words, the numbers “one hundred thirty two” and “one hunderdden thirty two” are both native, natural-sounding forms to me. I don’t flinch when I hear either construction.
so let me get this straight…
I usually say and hear numbers without the and. You usually say and hear them with. Therefore, you conclude that you and your friends constitute a reasonable and statistically-valid sampling of the US, and that I and my friends are misreporting and/or misperceiving. Isn’t that a wee bit egocentric?
No, not egocentric, just rational. From my perspective, my perceptions are evidence and yours are hearsay. I don’t even know that you’re a real person. You could be a bot programmed to claim that people use “and.”
Ah, yes, the solipsistic school of linguistics. Come on.
I’m not sure you said that. 
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’
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’.
I’ve always thought the ‘come on’ or ‘oh, come on’ are two of the most ‘interesting’ ways to engage in a debate.
Yeah … right!
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.)
Oh, it’s not even that. DrDeth’s own source flatly contradicts him. (Unless I am completely misunderstanding his argument.) The part that he quoted is in a section about when to spell out numerals and when not to. It is not about when to use “and” or not. That part comes a few sections later and not only does it not say the usage of “and” is “not even the preferred usage in Br E.” (which is what DrDeth claims), it says it’s required in British English.