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.)
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.
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.
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.
How has Oxford proven him wrong? The section you referred to says this:
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:
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).
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. **
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?
Common usage in NZ English.
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.
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) “If 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.
*
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.
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
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…