Comments on: Writing the Century http://www.dailywritingtips.com/writing-the-century/ Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:00:10 -0600 hourly 1 By: Peter http://www.dailywritingtips.com/writing-the-century/comment-page-1/#comment-128802 Peter Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:18:42 +0000 http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=2455#comment-128802 I read them as "one point five" and "one point oh five"; but you can't really confuse "one hundred and one" (101) with "one hundred and one tenth" (100.1) with "one hundred and one and one tenth" (101.1) anyway ... still less things like "one hundred and twenty three" vs. "one hundred and twenty three tenths", since the latter doesn't make sense (or at least isn't the way you'd expect anyone in their right mind to say 102.3). I could imagine someone saying they had a problem with the difference between the two numbers "one hundred" and "one" vs. the single number "one hundred and one"; but I have the same problem with the American style: when you say "one hundred one" I interpret it as "100, 1" -- it sounds like there should be more numbers following (I'd expect an "and" before the last one) <i>But generations growing up with numbers, now see 1960 as a number just 40 less than 2000, and not related to the MCMLX Roman numeral, or as the sum of thousands, hundreds, tens, and units. Perhaps this is new math manifesting as a change in grammar usage.</i> I would think the opposite would be true: don't they still teach kids to count in non-decimal bases? Binary, at least, is rather common nowadays :) I read them as “one point five” and “one point oh five”; but you can’t really confuse “one hundred and one” (101) with “one hundred and one tenth” (100.1) with “one hundred and one and one tenth” (101.1) anyway … still less things like “one hundred and twenty three” vs. “one hundred and twenty three tenths”, since the latter doesn’t make sense (or at least isn’t the way you’d expect anyone in their right mind to say 102.3).
I could imagine someone saying they had a problem with the difference between the two numbers “one hundred” and “one” vs. the single number “one hundred and one”; but I have the same problem with the American style: when you say “one hundred one” I interpret it as “100, 1″ — it sounds like there should be more numbers following (I’d expect an “and” before the last one)

But generations growing up with numbers, now see 1960 as a number just 40 less than 2000, and not related to the MCMLX Roman numeral, or as the sum of thousands, hundreds, tens, and units. Perhaps this is new math manifesting as a change in grammar usage.

I would think the opposite would be true: don’t they still teach kids to count in non-decimal bases? Binary, at least, is rather common nowadays :)

]]> By: Brad K. http://www.dailywritingtips.com/writing-the-century/comment-page-1/#comment-128798 Brad K. Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:51:13 +0000 http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=2455#comment-128798 Peter, I imagine it goes "one and five tenths" and "one and five one hundredths". Depending on local dialect, at speed I imagine "two hundred and nine" might be confused with "two hundred thousand nine". Some may think of this as reducing confusion, maybe? But I think the and thing reflects a change in thinking about numbers. If you learn of numbers and number of thousands, plus number of hundreds, plus number of tens - sort of like a verbal description of an abacus - then the "and" stands for an addition operation. But generations growing up with numbers, now see 1960 as a number just 40 less than 2000, and not related to the MCMLX Roman numeral, or as the sum of thousands, hundreds, tens, and units. Perhaps this is new math manifesting as a change in grammar usage. Peter, I imagine it goes “one and five tenths” and “one and five one hundredths”.

Depending on local dialect, at speed I imagine “two hundred and nine” might be confused with “two hundred thousand nine”. Some may think of this as reducing confusion, maybe?

But I think the and thing reflects a change in thinking about numbers. If you learn of numbers and number of thousands, plus number of hundreds, plus number of tens – sort of like a verbal description of an abacus – then the “and” stands for an addition operation.

But generations growing up with numbers, now see 1960 as a number just 40 less than 2000, and not related to the MCMLX Roman numeral, or as the sum of thousands, hundreds, tens, and units. Perhaps this is new math manifesting as a change in grammar usage.

]]> By: Peter http://www.dailywritingtips.com/writing-the-century/comment-page-1/#comment-128791 Peter Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:06:05 +0000 http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=2455#comment-128791 tgrillo: how does "and" mean there's a decimal present? Do you mean you read "1.5" as "one and five" or something? Surely not! (How would you distinguish between "1.5" and "1.05" then?) tgrillo: how does “and” mean there’s a decimal present? Do you mean you read “1.5″ as “one and five” or something? Surely not! (How would you distinguish between “1.5″ and “1.05″ then?)

]]> By: tgrillo http://www.dailywritingtips.com/writing-the-century/comment-page-1/#comment-128444 tgrillo Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:27:26 +0000 http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=2455#comment-128444 As an American teacher, my elementary-aged students are taught to drop the 'and' as they learn to read large numbers and monetary amounts aloud because 'and' means there is a decimal present. It has nothing to do with being lazy. As an American teacher, my elementary-aged students are taught to drop the ‘and’ as they learn to read large numbers and monetary amounts aloud because ‘and’ means there is a decimal present. It has nothing to do with being lazy.

]]> By: Maeve http://www.dailywritingtips.com/writing-the-century/comment-page-1/#comment-128414 Maeve Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:06:05 +0000 http://www.dailywritingtips.com/?p=2455#comment-128414 Spike1, I assumed it was a typo, but after the "lazy" remark I couldn't resist my baser nature! :-) Spike1,
I assumed it was a typo, but after the “lazy” remark I couldn’t resist my baser nature! :-)

]]>