May 17th, 2009
Grammar Cop receives a lot of questions about formatting numbers in a manuscript. What are the rules?
The most widely accepted rule is to spell out numbers less than one hundred but use numerals for greater than 100. However, as with all rules of punctuation and grammar, there are exceptions.
- The first word of a sentence, if it’s a number, must be spelled out. Nine hundred homes were destroyed by the tsunami. (Unless it’s the year: 2011 begins the new decade.)
- Parts of a book are numerals. Chapter 12, Pages 44-48, Volume 2, page 3.
- House Numbers in an address are numerals. They live at 16 Acorn Street.
- Street names in an address are spelled out. They live at 401 Third Street.
- Spell ages of persons. She lived to be ninety-nine years old.
- Spell out numerals (except a year) in dialogue. “I’ve told you a hundred times.”
- Spell out numbers for consistency in a case of mixed conditions: Ninety to two-hundred people typically attend the meeting.
- Spell out round numbers and ordinal numbers. They had to sell a thousand tickets. She sold the thousandth ticket.
- Spell out the number directly preceding a second number. He bought two 100-pound bags of onions.
- Amounts of money that you spell out require the word dollars or cents. She paid $10,500 for the car. She paid two thousand dollars as a down payment.
- Temperature is expressed by a numeral followed by the degree symbol. It was 32°F this morning.
- Spell out numbers of fractions if they are not attached to the whole number. Three-fourths of the book is finished. It took 25½ weeks to write.
- Dates are numerals except in formal legal writing. She graduated from college May 30, 1989. She graduated in the class of ‘89.
- Exact time of day is in numerals if it would be awkward to write it out. She heard the gun shot at 7:43 A.M. He arrived at eight o’clock.
- Sports scores, poll results, voting results are numerals.
As you see, there are a lot of exceptions to expressing numbers in writing. Either print out this Web page to use as a guide or bookmark the site.
Good writing!
Cheryl
Posted in Grammar | 2 Comments »
February 22nd, 2009
Because of your complaints that blog comment posting is
difficult, I have opened a new Yahoo! group for the purpose of
receiving your grammar questions. If I deem the question suitable for
the blog, I will post it and my response here at The Grammar Cop as well as
to the list.
Click to join Grammar Cop
Posted in Grammar, Writing | 2 Comments »
February 7th, 2009
I received a question today about compound words. When do you hyphenate? Or do you?
Language evolves, and hyphenated words are no exception. We used to use make-up, now it’s makeup. Oversensitive, outmaneuver, and underachiever began their lives as separate or hyphenated words. Hyphens are used to clarify, particularly modifiers. For instance in the sentence: His beet red face betrayed his embarrassment is acceptable, but His beet-red face betrayed his embarrassment is clearer because beet modifies red not face. Beet-red is a compound adjective. Beetred isn’t a word.
Fortunately, we have Spellcheck® to alert us to words that are not yet accepted without a hyphen. Unfortunately, its database isn’t perfect.
Take the case of e-mail. The e in e-mail is short for electronic. Same with e-book or e-commerce or e-anything. If you eliminate the hyphen, you have incorrectly formatted the technological compound word. Alas, it’s a losing battle. AOL, Yahoo!, and the computer world insists on ignoring the rule and creating new words: email, ebook, etc. I encourage you to take up the good fight, however, and continue to hyphenate e-mail in your writing.
When do you avoid the hyphen? Never use a hyphen in a combined modifier that includes an adverb: overly dressed, excessively jealous, very dark.
Hyphenated words are disappearing from usage, though. Look for more and more pairs of words to evolve into new single words, like multitasking. It wasn’t long ago, I multi-tasked. Oh, well, such is progress.
Posted in Grammar, Writing | 5 Comments »
October 29th, 2008
I just finished reading Martha Brockenbrough’s book Things That Make Us [sic] and have to recommend it for all writers. It’s more than a quick reference for grammar; it’s a fun read. Since I agree that good literature should both delight and instruct, I classify Things That Make Us [sic] good literature. Bravo, Martha Bee!
![Things That Make Us [sic]](http://marthabee.com/spogg/smallcover.jpg "Things That Make Us [sic]")
I don’t know Martha, but I’ve been a reader of her SPOGG¹ Blog for two years now. She exposes bad grammar from Hollywood celebrities to elected officials. She offers grammar help at her website (http://spogg.org) and works to promote the use of good grammar. The book is a concise culmination of years of collected infractions. For more on the book, visit the website at http://thingsthatmakeussic.com.
¹Society for the Promotion of Good Grammar
Posted in Grammar, Writing | 2 Comments »
