Nicole Parker Answers and Asks Grammar and Punctuation Questions

Tricky punctuation, grammar, and general writing rules

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Numbers

Most people say large numbers like "a hundred and fifty. Two hundred and seventy-five", etc. I am pretty sure that this is wrong, but I can't yet find proof. I think you're supposed to say, "one hundred fifty. Two hundred seventy-five." I think I remember this from grammar school, plus my niece's math homework, but when I look it up online, people are defending the 'and' version. But I don't trust opinions: I want a good source (partially because I'm pretty sure I'm right.) (from english.stackexchange.com:) "When I learned this “rule” (in first grade, I believe), it was explained that and separates the whole part from the fractional part: 2⅔=two and two thirds. The word and would only represent the decimal point in decimal numbers when they are read out in the formal “fractional” reading of decimals, as 2.3=two and three tenths, or 1.75=one and seventy-five one-hundredths. That is, according to this rule, *one hundred and fifty is ungrammatical because, if it is supposed to mean 150, it should be one hundred fifty, and if it is supposed to be mean 100.50, it should be one hundred and fifty one-hundredths. The rationale behind the rule is that you should only have one and in a phrase, so if the number were 403⅞, you wouldn’t say four hundred and three and seven eighths. Of course, most of the time the decimal point is read as point: 2.3=two point three; 1.75=one point seven five or one point seventy-five; 100.50=one hundred point five zero, one hundred point five oh, or one hundred point fifty. The fractional reading of decimal numbers also starts to become a bit ridiculous if there are more than three digits after the decimal point: nobody would say 3.14159265=three and fourteen million one hundred fifty-nine thousand two hundred sixty-five one hundred millionths. As you have undoubtedly observed, many Americans don’t follow the rule about and only being used to separate whole and fractional parts, and insert and just before the units of a number less than one hundred, although the forms without and are quite common too. 457 four hundred fifty-seven or four hundred and fifty-seven 2001 two thousand one or two thousand and one 1,000,001 one million one or one million and one"
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
If anyone sees any mistakes, or wants to add on, please do so!

After reading so many rules from so many sources, in so many contexts, I've decided that no one really knows absolutely what's right and what's wrong. If they do, I would love to see the exhaustive list. Anyway, I'll start.

Commas:

Ex: Use commas with lists, dependent clauses, and after introductory phrases.

Ex: I have red shoes, a black headband, and a blue bicycle.

Everyone knows you use commas when you have a list of 2 or more things. The confusion comes about whether or not you put a comma before the "and" before the last item. You do. (Unless you work at a newspaper or magazine company.)

Ex: When you called I had an entire popsicle.
 When I said you were stupid, I had eaten most of my popsicle.

Personally, I feel like a comma should always be used after a prepositional phrase; however, from what I've gleaned, if there's a prepositional phrase that's less than 5 words, you don't need a comma to follow.
However, if the phrase is 5 or more words, use a comma. This seems to be up for debate though. I think if you want to use a comma in a prepositional phrase, no matter how long it is, you may. If you use a comma, I think you'll always be correct; if you don't, you could be wrong.

Ex: If you were 8 years old, you would think that rule was silly.
If there is a dependent clause preceding an independent clause, use a comma to separate the two. (as shown above) If an independent clause precedes a dependent clause, do not use a comma.

Ex: The woman at the store, whose name I do not know, was very nice.


Commas come before and after paranthetical phrases. (non-restrictive) If you could take a phrase out of a sentence, and the sentence would still make sense, it is paranthetical; hence, surrounded by 2 commas.

If a phrase is necessary to the meaning of a sentence, it's considered restrictive and does not require commas around it.

Ex: The woman at the store who had red hair was very nice.

The difference between restrictive and non-restrictive can be confusing, to me anyway, but just think: if you're talking about a woman at a store, that could be anyone, so you NEED to mention that you're talking about the one with red hair. If it's obvious what woman you're talking about, and you want to mention that she has red hair, as an aside, then it's non-restrictive, and you use commas before and after the phrase.



The Semi-Colon
At first, I thought she was nice; however, now I know better.
She has curly hair; I have straight hair.
I used to think that aside from using a semi-colon after words like "however," "otherwise," "therefore," etc., you also used them when you wanted a longer pause than a comma seemed to provide. Now I don't think that's correct. You definitely DO use a semicolon before the words I listed above (and then a comma after the word,) but you use a semi-colon to join two independent clauses, when you don't use a conjunction (in which case you'd use a comma.)
Powered By Blogger
 
Google