My instinct with the OP is 1200, not 1,200. But I could see myself using the latter in rare circumstances.
My hard cap is almost certainly 9900. I’d have to repeat the word “hundred” after that point, and I’d be fighting the natural chunking into thousands.
But in practice it always varies, and I suspect that it varies more the higher the number. And, of course, it has to actually be used to quantify or count something, as otherwise I’m just saying digits and will say them in the most convenient way possible.
I will note that I was taught in school that the comma was optional in numbers under 10,000, btw. I remember a math book that would not use the comma before then.
And, finally, things get even more complicated if it doesn’t end in 00. I think I may occasionally say hundred for numbers above 1000 ending in 01-09. And I will sometimes not say hundred at even with numbers less than 999. “Five thirty-five” can be fine as long as the context is that it’s an integer.
What is “natural” about chunking into thousands? It depends on what you are counting, and what you are used to. Plenty of people count by lakh and crore, or by myriads, depending on the context.
Those are indeed natural speech in other cultures, but I’m not part of those cultures. I’m describing what feels natural for me, not some inherent property of the numbers.
I do think there is something to the fact that, if we chunk four of something, we use 2+2, not 1+3. With five of something, we chunk it as 2+3. In my culture I have an already built in way to do that with 5 digits numbers: 2 thousands digits, and 3 unit digits.
But with four digit numbers, there is a fight between the usual 2+2 splitting and splitting by thousands. I don’t even really feel like I’m chunking at all when I say 12 hundred. It’s only if I have to say 12 hundred 35 that I feel it, and then I feel a weaker pull to split that to 1 thousand, 2 hundred 35. The exception is if I can say twelve thirty-five and they don’t think I’m saying $12.35 or 12:35.
This remains solely my analysis of how I think I experience it, and obviously others may experience it differently. I could even be wrong about why certain things feel more or less natural to me.
¡Presente! As we call them Arabic numbers, and they originally come from India (or so I am told), perhaps someone could tell whether they use a comma, a period or simply nothing in India, the Arab countries and yes, why not, also Israel? Although calling Europeans weirdos seems to be a hint that in Israel they use the comma, but who knows? Maybe not.
I would always say twelve hundred. And this will continue up to ninety nine hundred ninety nine. But for whole thousands, I would say that 2000 is two thousand. Illogical? What’s logical about language.
If you’re going to be that pedantic, then neither one of those is a number. They’re sequences of words. And those sequences are different ways of naming the same number.
Also, unless it’s in a list with numbers of 5 or more digits, where I will include the comma for consistency’s sake, I write it ‘1200’ rather than ‘1,200.’ But to each their own.
While I’m being pedantic, I think you mean ‘the biggest number you’d express in hundreds.’ To count 2000 in hundreds would be to go “100, 200, 300,…” etc. all the way up to 2000. Like if you were counting out the bills as you were paying someone $2000 in hundred-dollar bills.
In answer to the rephrased question, I’d say whole numbers of thousands under a million as that whole number of thousands: two thousand, five hundred thirty-eight thousand, etc.
But for numbers of hundreds under 10,000 that aren’t evenly divisible by 1000, it’s just easier (and to my ear, more natural) to say “seventeen hundred” or “ninety-two hundred” than “one thousand seven hundred” or “nine thousand two hundred.”
But past 10,000, it doesn’t seem to work: saying 11,700 as “one hundred seventeen hundred” would be both awkward and confusing.
Exactly. We say twelve hundred instead of one thousand two hundred because it’s three syllables instead of six. The same reason five thousand instead of fifty hundred and a million instead of a thousand thousand.
Another “it depends on the context,” and maybe also on my mood or whim. If it’s written with a comma, as in this thread’s title, that makes me more likely to say it as “one thousand two hundred.”
If it represented a year, or a house number, I’d almost certainly say “twelve hundred”; but in those cases I wouldn’t expect it to be written with a comma.
I usually say “twelve hundred,” because it’s half the syllables of “one thousand two hundred,” and I try not to waste precious mouth energy unless absolutely necessary. I’m too cool for that.
The exception is when I’m trying to sound impressive, biblical, or deeply full of crap.
“Back in the day, I owned ONE THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED Beanie Babies!”
“Twelve hundred” sounds like a number. “One thousand, two hundred” sounds like there should be trumpets, a velvet cape, and several people checking the math.
Off topic, but I think you can get the ö if you rest your finger on the o for two seconds and then slide without lifting the finger to the options that will be shown. Same for ä, ü, ñ, ç… starting with the a, u, n, c… respectively. And many many more!
Indian usage: 1,23,45,678.90
US: 12,345,678.90
Israel: ???
Speaking of mental “chunking”, this may just be a grammatical quirk that occurs in several languages, but let us take Arabic for example: there is singular, then dual, then for let’s say 3–10 the counted noun is plural and in genitive case, but for 11–99 chunking takes over and the counted noun is singular, in accusative case. There should be something analogous going on in Hebrew (five sheqels versus fifteen shekel[s]) [ETA Gesenius mentions some complicated rules for this in Biblical Hebrew, but they essentially conform to the same chunking principle.]
I’m not entirely sure I understand your question (I haven’t studied Arabic since high school, and I was never really good at it even then). There is, however, an interesting quirk with your Hebrew example, regarding gender. Numbers, like most Hebrew words, are gendered, with a male and female form for each number. When just stating or counting numbers, the female form is used, but otherwise, numbers are treated like adjectives and their gender is made to match the noun they’re describing - so “three men” would be “shlosha gevarim” and “three women” would be “shalosh nashim” (for reasons I can’t explain, in numbers, unlike all other adjectives, the “a” suffix indicates male, not female).
However, when taking about money, specifically, it’s very common in colloquial speech to use the female (normal counting) form when talking about money, and to say “shekel” (singular) instead of “shekalim” (the plural, which is male). That means that “proper” grammar, when saying “fifteen shekels”, would be to say “Chamisha-asar (male) shekalim”, but in day-to-day speech, Hebrew speakers will more often than not say “Chamesh-esreh (female) shekel”.
After the numerals from 11 to 19 the singular is used, as a rule, with יוֹם day, שָׁנָה year, אִישׁ man, נֶ֫פֶשׁ soul (person), שֵׁ֫בֶט tribe, מַצֵּבָה pillar (Ex 24), sometimes with אַמָּה cubit, חֹ֫דֶשׁ month, עִיר city, שֶׁ֫קֶל shekel (compare our four-year-old, ten pound), e.g. Dt 1 אַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם (cf., however, such exceptions as Dt 1, Jos 4, &c.).—Substantives other than these are used in the plural with the numerals from 11 to 19, and the numeral may even follow the substantive, especially in later passages, as Nu 7 f., 1 Ch 4, 25.
Shekels are explicitly mentioned as subject to this chunking (hence chamisha-asar shekel if I understood the rule); he also talks about exceptions…
As we call them Arabic numbers, and they originally come from India (or so I am told), perhaps someone could tell whether they use a comma, a period or simply nothing in India, the Arab countries and yes, why not, also Israel? Although calling Europeans weirdos seems to be a hint that in Israel they use the comma, but who knows? Maybe not.